THE STATE OF BIHAR Vs. SURENDRA SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Title Appeal No. 37/2001 was pending before the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd, Patna City for adjudication. The argument for the appellant was heard on 6.6.2012 and the appeal was adjourned to 13.6.2012 for the argument of the respondent, on which date a petition was filed on behalf of the respondent. That petition was disallowed and the appeal was fixed for hearing argument of the respondent on 19.6.2012. The learned Judge, who was presiding over the Court of Additional District Judge, 3rd, Patna City, received an envelope on 14.6.2012 from the respondent of the case, i.e., the present respondent-contemnor Surendra Prasad Sharma. It was a copy of the letter addressed to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court. It contained scurrilously serious allegations which was not only contemptuous but were disparaging and derogatory imputations personally against the learned Judge who was presiding over the court. The letter addressed to Hon'ble the Chief Justice, which is placed at page 7 of the present case requested the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to transfer Title Appeal No. 37/2001 from Additional District Judge, 3rd, Patna City to any other court and, as may appear from the contents of that letter dated 13.6.2012, the respondent-contemnor alleged that the learned Judge had received bribe of Rs. 6 lacs for deciding the case in favour of the appellant and further alleged that the learned Judge was partisan inasmuch as he had, after imposing a cost of Rs. 500/- against the appellant had written off half of the amount to show his impartiality to the contemnor. Personal imputations, like the learned Judge had poor knowledge of law, was made and it was alleged that the learned Judge was bent upon altering the judgment of the trial court in title appeal aforesaid only on account of having received the bribe money. While making imputations, which was both contemptuous and damaging to the integrity and personality of the Judge, the contemnor-respondent was touching upon the facts and documents of the case as if he were the only law literate in the society who had the onerous task of unveiling the corruption in the judiciary.

(2.) It appears that on receipt of the letter, the learned Judge issued a notice to show-cause to the respondent-contemnor by initiating an inquiry under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act and that notice in English dated 4.7.2012 appears at page 9 of the present proceedings. On receipt of the notice in English, which was sent by letter No. 194 dated 4.7.2012, the present contemnor-respondent responded to it and stated by filing an application dated 9.7.2012, which is at page 12 of the present brief, for furnishing the notice in Hindi as he did not know English and as such, he was not in a position to respond to the contents of the notice. Accordingly, Hindi version of the notice was served upon the respondent-contemnor and he filed his show-cause, which appears at page 14 of the present brief. The show-cause dated 25.7.2012 and the contents of the show cause were supported by an affidavit sworn by the respondent-contemnor before the Notary Public.

(3.) What appears from the perusal of the show-cause filed by the present contemnor-respondent was that if something was lesser as in terms of the contumaciousness that was supplemented by the show-cause filed by the present respondent before the learned Enquiring Judge. The contemnor-respondent was alleging that the learned Judge had entered into a conspiracy so as to gagging his voice against the corrupt acts of a Judge and had probably applied an unlawful method of shutting his voice out and as such, the notice had been served upon him. He was justifying the words which had been used in the previous letter dated 13.6.2012 addressed to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and was further stating that it was the truth which was spoken and written by him. The only purpose of holding inquiry and serving the notice was to gag his voice. Not only the above but in the closing paragraph of the show-cause, the contemnor was also making statement so as to putting pressure upon the learned Judge, who was holding the inquiry under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act so that the title appeal noted above could be transferred by him to any another court. It was stated by him that because the respondent-contemnor had filed an application addressed to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and also because he had filed a transfer application before the District Judge, it was in the fitness of things that the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Patna City had transferred Title Appeal No. 37/2001 to any other court. Thus, the real intention and the design behind the letter addressed to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice or filing of the application by way of showing cause by him was to divest the learned Judge from hearing the title appeal. While so doing, he was still hurling the same scurrilously contemptuous words so as to denigrating the learned Judge by making personal attacks upon him as regards knowledge of Jaw and his integrity of functioning as a Judge of a court.