STATE OF BIHAR Vs. GORAKH PRASAD SRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A rule was issued on the opposite party to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of Court in regard to certain statements that he made in a letter dated 12-4-60 addressed to Sri G.B. Pant, Home Minister, Government of India. It appears that a suit, being Money Suit No. 420 of 1956, was instituted against the opposite party on the basis of a handnote in the Court of the Munsif of Gopalganj, in the district of Saran. The defence of the opposite party in that case was one of total denial. He alleged that the signature and thumb mark on the handnote had been forged by the plaintiff and that the document itself had been converted into a handnote out of an entry in a certain bahi khata. The defence appears to have succeeded in the trial Court. The learned Munsif dismissed the suit holding that the handnote was forged. In appeal Mr. S.M. Karim, District Judge of Saran, took a different view and decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the handnote was genuine. Thereafter, the opposite party filed a second appeal in the High Court on a nominal court-fee. Before this appeal was admitted, the opposite party addressed the aforesaid letter to the Home Minister making serious allegations in regard to the character and integrity of the District Judge and an Hon'ble Judge of this Court. He alleged inter alia that the District Judge Bad allowed the appeal on being influenced from above and on being bribed by the party concerned. He also made an allegation against an Hon'ble. Judge of this Court to the effect that in pursuance of a Pact between him and this Particular District Judge the former dismisses all appeals arising out of judgments passed by the latter. He further stated that he could get justice only if his case was entrusted to the Chief Justice of this Court. To-wards the end of the letter he wrote:

(2.) The opposite party in his petition showing cause has admitted that he had sent the letter in question to the Home Minister. His plea, however, is that he intended it to be treated as confidential and it was never his intention that any enquiry should be set on foot, in regard to what he had said. He has further pleaded that he wrote the letter in a troubled state of mind and that the objectionable passages were the result of his ignorance and want of command over the English language. Finally, he has offered unqualified apology and has thrown himself upon the mercy and clemency of the Court.

(3.) Mr. Jaleshwar Prasad appearing for the opposite party has not disputed that the letter in question constitutes gross contempt of Court. He has, however, submitted that the contemner is genuinely penitent and has pointed out that as soon as he was called upon by the Registrar of this Court to appear before him and make his statement about the authorship of the letter in question he frankly admitted that he had written it.