STATE Vs. R N PATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 16th of October, 1974, contemner was called upon to show cause as to why a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, shall not be initiated against him for contempt of this Court. On 26 -11 -1974, contemner appeared through counsel and asked for time to show cause. In due course he entered personal appearance and showed cause. The matter was heard on 12 -2 -1975 and a Bench of this Court decided that notice should issue to contemner to show cause as to why he shall not be punished for contempt. By then on the materials available, the Court also decided that contemner should be called upon to show cause as to why he may not be punished for the contempt of the Court of the Sessions Judge, Ganjam -Boudh at Berham -pur. Accordingly a combined notice was issued to contemner on 18th of February, 1975, to show cause as to why he would not be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act for having committed contempt of this Court as also of the Court of the District and Sessions Judge of Ganjam.

(2.) THE allegations in the notice which prima facie constitute contempt are as follows: The contemner addressed a petition dated 27 -8 -1974 to the Honourable the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India making allegations against the District and Sessions Judge of Ganjam -Boudh at Berhampur and forwarded a copy thereof addiressed to the Honourable the Chief Justice of this Court. Therein, he made allegations that Shri K. P. Acharya, District and Sessions Judge of Ganjam, Berhampur, was giving all to understand that he had the protection so long as the Chief Justice continued in office. He also alleged that the District and Sessions Judge was visiting freely the residences of counsel for parties whose cases he was hearing while in circuit and was obliging a group of lawyers.

(3.) AN independent application dated 2 -9 -1974 was forwarded by contemner to the Honourable the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India making further allegations against the District and Sessions Judge of Ganjam endorsing a copy thereof to the S. P., C. B. I, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, with an endorsement for early action. A separate application was also addressed to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Orissa, Cuttack, making allegations against the said District and Sessions Judge and these documents were forwarded in due course by the addressees to the Court for appropriate action. 3. On 31st of March, 1975, contemner showed cause. In paragraph 3 of the show cause, he stated that on 12 -12 -1974 and 12 -2 -1975, contemner had tendered unqualified apology, but since the same was not accepted and notice to show cause against punishment was issued, be denied to have committed any contempt either of this Court or of the court of the District and Sessions Judge of Ganjam. He pleaded that the allegations made by him and four others of Parlakhe -mundi against the District and Sessions Judge were true. Though contemner was not aware whether there was truth in the statement that 'Shri G. K. Misra, Chief Justice, Orissa, is there to protect 'Shri Acharya', the District and Sessions Judge of Ganjam', the latter had been giving out the same and as such statement created an impression in the contemner that there may not be a fair enquiry against the District and Sessions Judge if the complaint was made to this Court, the letters had been sent to the Supreme Court and enquiry by an authority other than the High Court was suggested. The communications are claimed to be confidential and made in good faith for the purpose of keeping the stream of justice unpolluted. 4. On 17 -6 -1975, counsel for contemner wanted summons to issue to certain witnesses whom he intended to examine in support of his stand in the proceeding and witnesses were duly summoned. On 26 -6 -1975, from the service reports it transpired that all the witnesses summoned through Court had been duly served with the notices. Two of these witnesses had sent letters of request to adjourn the hearing pleading personal difficulties. When at the hearing it was suggested that non -bailable warrants may issue to the witnesses, Mr. Rao for contemner stated that he would give up examination of these witnesses. Accordingly no further steps were taken. Mr. Rao examined two witnesses, one being the witness summoned through Court and another who had volunteered to appear at the request of contemner. One more witness whose hazira was filed was declined. Thus in support of con -temner's stand, two witnesses in all have been examined.