GIANI RAM Vs. RAMNATH DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by one Gianiram under the Contempt of Courts Act, and has arisen under the following circumstances.

(2.) THE petitioner was a sub-post-master in Bikaner City and was under suspension, and was being prosecuted Under Section 409, IPC in the court of the City Magistrate, Bikaner, for having embezzled certain money under his charge. The opposite party Ramnathdutt is the Superintendent ?f Post-offices, North Rajasthan Division, Bikaner and the petitioner was prosecuted on his report. At the trial one P. W. Rameshwar Prasad, now sub-postmaster, Bikaner City, but a clerk earlier, was examined as a prosecution witness on 2811-1953, and it is said that during the course of his crossexamination, Rameshwar Prasad gave replies to certain questions which were favourable to the petitioner and which went to show that the opposite party Ramnathdutt was on terms of en-raity with the petitioner. Rameshwar Prasad had yet to be cross-examined after charge, and such cross-examination actually took place on 24-6-1954, but in the meantime on 5-4-1954, the opposite party served a charge-sheet on him to show cause why he gave a false statement in court and why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for, what the opposite party characterized in the charge to be "a vicious statement". It is contended that before Rameshwar Prasad was called for his cross- examination after charge, he met the petitioner and told him not to put any questions relating to enmity which the opposite party bore towards him, and also warned that if that course was persisted in, the witness would have to give answers which would be unfavourable to the petitioner. It is further stated that under these circumstances the petitioner instructed his counsel to refrain from putting questions on that aspect of the matter. Hence the present application. It is prayed that the action of the opposite party in serving Rameshwar Prasad with a charge-sheet while the case was pending against the petitioner was calculated to interfere with the due course of justice and hampered the petitioner in his defence and clearly amounted to contempt of court.

(3.) THE opposite party in reply has sought to justify the action taken by him and stated that Rameshwar Prasad had during his examination made certain false statements in court, which were false to the knowledge of the opposite party, and had falsely made imputations against him and that the opposite party was, therefore, entitled to take departmental action against the petitioner for what was a breach of departmental rules, and that such action on his part as he had taken had nothing to do with the merits of the case pending against the petitioner in court, and therefore, he was not guilty of any contempt. It was also submitted that the petitioner had already been convicted by the court Under Section 409 IPC It is thus claimed that there was no intention whatsoever on the part of the opposite party to overawe Rameshwar Prasad, or to interfere in any way with the due course of justice but that he had acted bona fide in the discharge of his official duties, which, as a superior officer of the postal department he was entitled to do. After an attempt was thus made to justify his conduct, the opposite party further prayed that if this Court was of the view that the respondent's action in giving a charge-sheet to Rameshwar Prasad under the circumstances was improper and constituted a contempt, the opposite party wished to tender his unqualified apology and that we should accept the same.