RAMLAL Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NIYOGI , A.J.C. 1. The applicant Ramlal was convicted of the offence of contempt of Court punishable under Section 228, I.P.C., and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50. His appeal having been dismissed, he moves this Court in revision.

(2.) IT appears that a complaint against the applicant's son was pending for trial in the Court of the Magistrate. On 3rd April 1931 the case was fixed for hearing. On that date the Magistrate received a letter containing aspersions on his character as a Magistrate. This letter was written admittedly by the applicant. The letter is unquestionably insulting to the Magistrate and there seems to be no doubt also that in addressing such a letter to the Magistrate th.8 applicant had the intention of insulting the Magistrate. On this point I am in entire agreement with the lower appellate Court.

(3.) IN Surendra Nath Banerjee In re 1906 4 C.L.J. 415 it was held that the directions contained in Section 481 are mandatory and the omission to record the particulars mentioned iii Section 481 is fatal to such proceedings. In another case reported in In re Kukati Narasa Reddi 1914 15 Cr. L.J. 621, the absence of the information regarding the nature and stage of the proceedings was regarded as fatal. Similarly in Jattumal v. Emperor A.I.R. 1928 Lah. 357, the same view was taken. It is clear that the record must clearly show the nature and the stage of the judicial proceedings in which the interruption or insult occurred. This appears to be absolutely necessary for the determination as to whether the offence occurred during the time when the Judge was actively engaged in judicial proceedings. The power given to the judicial officers by Sections 480 and 481 are exceptional, in that the prosecutor himself is the Judge. It is for this reason absolutely necessary that the record of the case should be complete and clear so as not to leave any ground for error. The offence of contempt of Court is appealable and therefore it is all the more necessary that the provisions of Section 481, Clause 2, are observed by the trying Magistrate. Omission to sat forth the particulars as required by Section 481, Clause 2, is not merely an irregularity which could be corrected by the application of Section 537, but, as held in oases already referred to, is fatal to the proceedings.