GOVERNMENT PLEADER Vs. JAGANNATH MSAMANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter comes before us on the petition of the Government Pleader which states:- 1. That Mr. Jagannath Moreshwar Samant, B.A., LL. B. is a District Court Pleader, and practises in the Courts of the District and Sessions Judge of Sholapur and Courts Subordinate thereto.

(2.) That on the 30 July last a public meeting was held at Sholapur Before the Eon. Mr. Basil Scott, Chief Justice, and Mr. Justice Batchelor. Government Pleader V. Jagannath m. Samant. Nove. 16 1908 Civil Appli tion No. 523 of 1908 Regulation 11 of 1827, Section 56-Pleader-Misconduct- Disciplinary jurisdiction -Highhings spoke in favour of the fifth resolution passed on the occasion and was in the chair when the said resolution was put to the meeting. The resolution was in the Marathi language and was to the following effect:- That this meeting contemptuously denounces the Honourable Mr. Justice Davar of the Bombay High Court, who at the time of announcing sentence made unchecked and unconnected and unmeaning assertions, which even the enemies of the respected Tilak would have been ashamed to make, and thereby branded our sorrow (sore hearts). 4. Petitioner submits that such conduct at a Public Meeting in a Pleader in regard to a resolution contemptuously denouncing a Judge of the High Court in respect of his solemn duty as a presiding Judge is not only contempt of Court, but is further reprehensible as" a misbehaviour falling within the purview of Section 56 of Regulation II of 1827, and as such can and ought to be dealt with by this Honourable Court in its Disciplinary Jurisdiction. 2. The petition is supported by affidavits of Mr. Barve, Deputy Superintendent of Police, and Mr. Dikshit, Sub-Inspector of Police, Sholapur.

(3.) In showing cause against the application two affidavits were made use of by counsel for Mr. Samant from which it appears that he did not speak on the fifth Resolution beyond asking if there was any objection to it. The Police Officers depose to words used by him defamatory of Mr. Justice Davar, but this is denied by Mr. Samant: we will therefore assume that they were not used.