STATE Vs. MANGILAL SEEWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a proceeding under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, against the writer of letter to the District Judge, Ratlam making contemptful and false allegations against Shri R.G. Pawar, Additional District Judge posted at Mandsaur. Called upon to show cause, he has written a letter to the High Court which, if anything, is even more seriously contemptful. He has, after evasions, appeared before this Court in person and repeated substantially, the same allegations as are contained in the two letters.

(2.) THE opposite party styles himself "Mangilal Seewar, Vidyarthi, P.A. C.I.D., Well -famous, successful, and Extra -ordinary Astrologer and Specialist in Palmistry etc., etc.,". We were interested in knowing what this title "P.A. C.I.D." meant, and he explained by saying that he used to be a person assisting the C.I.D. Be that as it may it appears from his second letter and his statement before us, though not from his first letter, that he had some quarrels leading to a criminal case before the Magistrate at Manasa against one Laxman son of Ramvilas Mahajan, apparently in respect of some land, and a second one under Section 323, Indian Penel Code against one Gopal. The former had been convicted by a Magistrate and as usual went in appeal. The appellate Court, namely Shri R.G. Pawar, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandsaur', allowed the appeal. In the second case, a fine had been imposed by the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge reduced it to Rs.25 out of which again, it appears only Rs.20 had been realised. These are all usual happenings in criminal litigation but they had a very peculiar reaction on the opposite party. He wrote a postcard to the District Judge, Ratlam, in whose division the particular Additional Sessions Judge is working. It has a letterpress which has already been described, and a small impression of a tricolour flag and a note at the top "Gopaniya" (confidential), though it passes one's understanding how a postcard can be confidential. It reads:

(3.) I sent this letter, that is No. 32 of 10 -4 -1958 to the District Judge to the following effect -"Shri R.G. Pawar delivered judgment in Case No. 94/57 on 4 -5 -1958 even in the absence of the accused Laxman and his counsel Kamargaonkar. He dismissed the case without paying attention to my application. This happened twice. Does it not, therefore, appear to be a case of partiality or bribery ? Shri Kamargaonkar pleader is the secretary of tha Jansangh at Mandsaur. The accused is also a member of Jansangh. I, therefore, believe that the Brahmins of sought (Sic) are naturally united. No wonder, if bribe has been taken from the Bania, both by the pleader and the Judge of the same caste after joining hands - I suspect it to be a Jansangh -Congress affair.