GOVERNMENT PLEADER Vs. VINAYAK BALVANT CHAUKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by the Government Pleader under our disciplinary jurisdiction for action being taken against the three opponents. The three opponents are: (1) Vinayak Balwant Chaukar, District Pleader, (2) Kundanmal Sobhachand Firodia, District Pleader, and (3) Chintaman Mohiniraj Saptarishi, High Court Vakil, all practising in the District of Ahmednagar. The first opponent was enrolled in May 1883, and is an old pleader holding a Sanad of this Court. The other two opponents Nos. 2 and 3 received their Sanads in 1910 and 1911 respectively. The allegations against them, which are set forth in the petition and which are not disputed, are that on October 24, 1921, while Gangadharrao Deshpande and the Ali brothers were on their trial at Dharwar and Karachi respectively a meeting was held at Ahmednagar and was presided over by opponent No. 1, and a resolution congratulating the convicts in the Dharwar Sessions Case and Gangadharrao Deshpande and the Ali brothers was moved by opponent No. 2 and seconded by opponent No. 3. The resolution runs as follows:- This meeting congratulates Maulana Mahomedali and Shaukatali and other leaders who are on their trial at Karachi as well as the leaders and other persons convicted in Dharwar case and also Mr. Gangadharrao, pleader of Belgaum, who is on his trial at Dharwar.

(2.) We do not know whether any speeches were made by opponents Nos. 2 and 3 at the time and, if any were made, the reports of those speeches are not before us. The application is based upon the part taken by these opponents at this meeting. The resolution, which I have above set forth, was passed on that day.

(3.) The explanations which the opponents offered to the District Judge are in the paper-book. In response to the notice issued on the application of the Government Pleader, opponent No 1 has not appeared before us and opponents Nos. 2 and 3 have put in their appearance, and their case has been presented to us by Dewan Bahadur Rao. In support of the application it was urged that this resolution amounted to contempt of Court. In my opinion, however, it is not necessary to go into this question. This is a question which may raise some difficult points; for instance, we will have to consider whether such a resolution passed at Ahmednagar in respect of one proceeding pending at Dharwar and another at Karachi would constitute contempt of this Court, because it is only the contempt of this Court as such that we would be concerned with. In this respect it seems to me that if it had been necessary to examine that question, we would have to examine it on the lines indicated in my judgment in Emperor V/s. Balkrishna (1921) 24 Bom. L.R. 16, 42:- In each case it must be determined as a question of fact having regard bo all the circumstances including the nature of the contempt, the nature of the proceedings with reference to which the contempt is committed, the relation of the Subordinate Court to the High Court with reference to those proceedings and its probable effect upon the due administration of justice.