MUNSIF OF GARBETTA Vs. GOVINDA KUMAR SINGHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I do not think it is necessary to say much about this matter. The Rule was issued on Govinda Kumar Singha to show cause why he should not be proceeded against for contempt of the court of the Munsif of Garbetta. The Rule was issued on the basis of an allegation by the Munsif of Garbetta contained in a letter addressed to the Registrar. Two allegations were made therein. One was that according to the reports which had reached the Munsif, Govinda Kumar Singha in course of a speech in a public meeting that was held to devise ways and means for maintaining a local examination Centre for the Matriculation and the Intermediate Examinations "severely criticised" an order passed by the Munsif in a pending Title Suit granting Rs. 75/- as costs to the defendants of that suit. The second allegation was that Govinda Kumar Singha also severely criticised in the meeting the control exercised by him over examination and cross-examination of witnesses by defence lawyers in a Small Cause Court suit which had been disposed of. Affidavits were filed -- one by Bhupaty Nath Mukherjee and one by Krishna Lal Ghose in support of the allegations of the Munsif, Bhupaty Nath Mukherjee's affidavit supporting only the allegations as regards the criticism of award of cost of Rs. 75/-. The opposite party Govinda Kumar Singha has sworn an affidavit himself denying that he made the statements as regards the criticism of award of cost of Rs. 75/-. The opposite party Govinda Kumar Singha has sworn an affidavit himself denying that he made the statements as alleged, but admitting a statement :

(2.) It is important to remember that the Munsif himself was not present at the meeting and his report to this Court was based on what had been carried to him by others. It is not unlikely that people who thought it interesting to carry the reports of this nature to the Munsif would enjoy adding to and embellishing the statements which had actually been made by Govinda Kumar Singha. In view of this I am inclined to believe that the version given in the affidavits of Govinda Kumar Singha, Radhanath Kundu the President of the Bar Association and other senior lawyer is more likely to represent correctly what was said by Govinda Kumar Singha than the affidavits sworn by Bhupaty Nath Mukherjee and Krishna Lal Ghose,

(3.) If the only statement made was that if heavy costs had been awarded it would be harassing to the people of Midnapore, I cannot think how that would, in any way, be considered to amount to a contempt of court. Assuming, however, that a more definite statement was made and the speaker did, in fact, criticise an order of payment of Rs. 75/- as costs in a case I am of opinion that it would be wrong for us to take any action against the speaker for contempt of court with regard to this statement.