AWADH NARAIN SINGH Vs. JWALA PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner Awadh Narain Singli has obtained a rule from this Court calling upon th'e opposite party to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of Court under Section 4, Contempt of Courts Act (Act 32 of 1952). Cause has been shown by Mr. Ugrah Singh on behalf of opposite parties 1 to 5, 8, 9 and 12 to 15. Notices had been served upon the other opposite parties, but opposite party 6 has not appeared in spite of service of notice. Opposite parties 7, 10, 11 and 13 have appeared, but they are not represented by any counsel. They merely made an oral statement to Court that they are poor men and opposite parties 7 and 16 prayed that they might be excused.

(2.) The material facts are important. On 15-6-1954, the petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Banka in which he alleged that three persons, namely Dheku Mandal and his sons, Musan Mandal and Babu Lal Mandal had forcibly plucked mangoes from an orchard belonging to Sm. Baidehi Devi. The petitioner said that Dheku Mandal and his sons committed theft of mangoes worth Rs. 40/- and when the petitioner protested, they threatened him with assault. The petitioner further alleged that he was the molazim of Sm. Baide,hi Devi and looked after her properties. After the complaint petition was filed, the Sub-divisional Magistrate issued summons under Section 379, Penal Code, against Babu Lal Mandal, Musan Mandal and Dheku Mandal. On 2-7-1954, the accused persons applied to the Sub-divisional Magis-tiate for transfer of the case to the Gram Pan-chayet of Chatmadih Dharampur, But the petition was rejected by the Sub-divisional Magistrate and on 9-7-1954, the case was transferred to Mr. B. S. P. Sinha, Magistrate 2nd class, for being disposed of. On 14-7-1954, Babu Lal Mandal, opposite party 3, sent an application to the Chief Minister alleging that the case filed by Awadh Narain Singh was false and that the case was instituted in collusion with the second officer. It was further alleged by Babu Lal Mandal that Sitaram Singh was a wealthy man and the prosecution witnesses were all relations of Sitaram Singh and were all interested witnesses. . A copy of this petition was cent by Babu Lal Mandal to the Minister in charge of local self-Government. Other copies were also sent by Babu Lal Mandal to the Collector of Bhagalpur, to the Director of Gram Panchayet, to the District Gram Pan-chayet Officer, Bhagalpur, to the Subdivisional Officer, Banka, and to the Mukhia of Chatmadih Dharampur Gram Panchayet. The petition of Babu Lal Mandal is annesure A to the application. It is signed by opposite party 2, Chandra Mohan Singh, and by 95 other persons.

(3.) On 30-7-1954, opposite party 1, Jwala Pra-sad Singh, who is the Mukhia of Chatmadih Dharampur Gram Panchayet, sent a letter to the Sub-divisional Officer of Banka with respect to the criminal case. A copy of this letter is annexure B to the application. . In this letter, opposite party 1 stated that there was no occurrence at all as alleged by Awadh Narain Singh in his petition of complaint. Opposite party 1 further said that Sitaram Singh v/as a rich person and he had instituted a case falsely in order to put pressure upon. Dheku Mandal to give up his claim to the mango trees, Opposite party 1 further said that about 25 days before the alleged date of occurrence all the mangoes had been taken away by various purchasers. Opposite party 1 added that "the entire public of the area are dissatisfied with the false case which has been instituted". Thereafter, the accused persons filed a petition before the Sub-divisional Magistrate for transfer of the case from the file of Mr. B. S. P. Sinha, On 30-8-1954, the petition of transfer was rejected. Thereafter on 19-10-1954, the petitioner again made an application before the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Banka praying that proceedings may be started against opposite parties 1 and 2 for contempt of Court. The application was rejected by the Sub-divisional Magistrate on 26-9-1955 on the ground that "the opposite parties were inexperienced and raw villagers" and "if they had understood the implications of their writing, they would not have done what is alleged to have been done by them."