STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. HEM RAJ JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a suo moto contempt proceedings under Section 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, hereinafter referred-to as ``the Act'', registered by order of this court dated 5. 2. 99 against contemner respondent Hemraj, for contemptuous statement made by him against the ``judiciary'' in his representation dated 23. 12. 1998 addressed to Hon'ble Chief Minister and Law Minister of the State of Rajasthan. In response to the notice, he appeared before this court on 7. 4. 99. On his request, the court directed the Dy. Registrar (Judicial) to supply the copy of the order dated 5. 2. 99 and such other relevant documents as may be available in the proceedings and are claimed by him. He was also permitted to make inspection of the proceedings and demand such copies as are necessary for him to defend himself in the contempt proceedings. The registry complied with the order dated 7. 4. 99. The respondent has not made any grievance with respect to compliance of the order dated 7. 4. 1999. The case was adjourned to 7. 05. 1999. He did not appear on 7. 5. 99. Thus, a bailable warrant was issued to secure his presence, returnable on 23. 8. 1999. The case was adjourned from time to time as the warrant could not be executed on the respondent. The Superintendent of Police, Kota was directed to depute a responsible officer to get the bailable warrant executed on the respondent. Ultimately on 22. 3. 2000, the respondent appeared before this court. The Court asked him if needs the services of a lawyer, which can be arranged at the State expenses. He declined and claimed himself an expert on the Law of Contempt. He also submitted that there is nothing in his representation dt. 23. 12. 98, addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Minister and Hon'ble Law Minister of State of Rajasthan, which constitutes an offence of criminal contempt. He asked us to point out the contents from the representation, which constitutes an offence of criminal contempt. The Court read over the accusations as contained in paras 9, 12, 13, 14 and 15 (b) and the relief claimed. He also read said paras with the Court and marked them, as directed by the court. He sought time for filing the reply and to argue the matter. The case was adjourned to 4. 4. 2000.

(2.) WE have heard contemner respondent Hemraj and Mr. R. P. Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General.

(3.) THE contemner respondent was given the copy of his representation and the relevant documents by order dated 7. 4. 99. He was also permitted to inspect the file. THEreafter, he did not appear before this court. His presence could be secured only by bailable warrant. At no stage, he asked for the supply of the substance of accusations. On the contrary on 23. 03. 2000, when the court asked him if he needs assistance of some lawyer, he not only refused to accept but made a statement that he is an expert on the Law of Contempt. It appears that he feels that by prolonging the contempt petition, he can claim to be an expert in the Law of Contempt. Be that as it may, the accusations as contained in the paras 9, 12, 13, 14, 15 (b) and the relief clause as contained in the letter dated 23. 12. 98 were read over to him. He read them with the court and marked relevant portion in the copy of representation under reference with him. Thus, he is aware of the offending paras. Thus, there is no substance in the plea that copy of substance of accusation has not been given to him.