Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1951 DIGILAW 6 (MP)

State v. Bherulal Pannalal

1951-01-24

KAUL, MEHTA

body1951
JUDGMENT : MEHTA, J. 1. A notice was issued by this court on 29-6-1950 to one Devprakash, Sarpanch, Panchayat Board Raoti and to one Bherulal, Secretary of the Panchayat Board Raoti to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt of court inasmuch as they sent a written communication to the Civil Judge, Sailana, in which they wrote : Hindi Matter 2. By this letter the Sarpanch and the Secretary tried to interfere with the course of justice and tried to influence the Civil Judge, Sailana. The letter containing the above mentioned wordings was written by the Panchayat Board, Raoti, and signed by the Sarpanch and the Secretary and on 6-7-1950 it was sent to the Civil Judge, Sailana. 3. Suit was first instituted in a Panchayat Court of Raoti by Moti, Nanda and Govind for redemption of a house and possession thereof. The Panchayat Board found that it had no jurisdiction to hear the case and, therefore, on 6-7-1950 after dismissing the suit, the Secretary Panchayat Board, Raoti, sent the above letter on 6-7-1950 to the Civil Judge, Sailana. It was also signed by the Sarpanch. 4. In my opinion the above letter constituted interference in the administration of justice. The Panchayat Board has tried to influence the Civil Judge, Sailana and as such they have committed contempt of court. The members of the Panchayat Board are expected to know that in a pending matter they cannot write to the Civil Judge in whose court the case was pending that the matter should be decided in a particular way. It cannot be urged that they had no intention to influence the court. In my opinion the question of intention is irrelevant in considering whether the offence is committed. The question in such cases is not as to what was the intention of the offender but what was the effect of the publication. There is no doubt that the tendency of the above letter is to interfere with the administration of justice. The Panchayat Board has tried to influence the Civil Judge by writing the letter. 5. I, therefore, hold that the above letter constituted contempt of court and sentence both the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- each and the costs of the Government Advocate. 6. The Panchayat Board has tried to influence the Civil Judge by writing the letter. 5. I, therefore, hold that the above letter constituted contempt of court and sentence both the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 25/- each and the costs of the Government Advocate. 6. KAUL, C. J. :- I agree with the order proposed to be passed by Mehta, J. and shall add a few words of my own to mark the importance which the High Court attaches to such cases. 7. It is unnecessary for me to restate the facts as they have been mentioned in the judgment of my learned brother Mehta, J. There can be no doubt that both Bherulal and Devprakash were aware that in view of the order passed by the Panchayat Board, Raoti; Moti, Nanda and Govind would go to the Civil Court as the Panchayat Board was found not to have jurisdiction to decide the case. To address a communication from which an extract has been given in the judgment of Mehta, J. was clearly an act done with a view to influence the court in its decision of the case that was likely to come up before it shortly. 8. Pour points were urged by Mr. Rege on behalf of his clients : (i) That no case was pending before the court when his clients wrote the letter which is alleged to constitute contempt of court. (ii) That it was written at the request of Moti, Nanda and Govind. (iii) That his clients had no intention to affect the course of justice and whatever they did was done with the best of motives with a view to aid justice; and (iv) That the act complained of was done in ignorance of its legal implications and in view of the unqualified apology tendered the persons against whom notice was issued they may not be visited with any punishment. 9. In fairness to Mr. Rege it may be stated that he did not consider the first of the points mentioned above as a ground for holding that what was done by his clients did not amount to contempt of court. I am clearly of opinion that the learned counsel was well advised in adopting this course. Such a question arose in the case of - 'Tusharkanti Ghose v. Governor of Bengal in Council', AIR 1933 Cal 118 (A), at pp. I am clearly of opinion that the learned counsel was well advised in adopting this course. Such a question arose in the case of - 'Tusharkanti Ghose v. Governor of Bengal in Council', AIR 1933 Cal 118 (A), at pp. 122, 123. It was contended that there could be no contempt of High Court as the case was not pending before it. The contention was negatived. Reference was made in this connection by the learned Judges, Panckridge and Patterson JJ. in support of the view taken by them that there may be a contempt of Court even though no case was pending before it at the time the article complained of was written, to the following cases : - 'In re Labouchere; Ex parte Columbus Co. Ltd.', (1901) 17 TLR 578 (B); - 'Rex. v. Parke', (1903) 2 KB 432 (C); - 'Rex. v. Davies', (1908) 1 KB 32 (D) and - 'Governor of Bengal V. Matilal Ghose', (1913) 41 Cal 173 at p. 215 10. The gist of the offence of contempt of Court is to do something which would affect the course of justice to the prejudice of a party in a pending litigation or in circumstances where it is clear that the case was likely to come before a court in a short time. What was done in the present case does in my opinion amount to contempt of court. 11. That the letter was written at the instance of Moti, Nanda and Govind without any intention to affect the course of justice and in ignorance of legal implications cannot absolve Mr. Rege's clients from the consequences of their act. I am unable to accept the contention that the letter addressed to the Civil Judge, Sailana, was not written with the intention to affect the course of justice. The intention of the writer is not the criterion by which we should judge whether the act complained of amounts to contempt or not. This may be material in awarding the punishment. The main question for us to consider is what is the effect of the letter in question and if it had a tendency to obstruct and interfere with the due and proper course of administration of justice. 12. We have no doubt that the apology tendered in this case is sincere. This may be material in awarding the punishment. The main question for us to consider is what is the effect of the letter in question and if it had a tendency to obstruct and interfere with the due and proper course of administration of justice. 12. We have no doubt that the apology tendered in this case is sincere. At the same time we cannot lose sight of the fact that the Officers of the Panchayat Board, Bherulal and Devprakash should have known that what they were doing was most improper. 13. To mark our disapprobation of this conduct to indicate the serious view which we take of such a case I agree with the order passed by Mehta, J. that Bherulal and Devprakash each should pay a fine of Rs. 25/- and bear the costs of the Government which we assess at Rs. 30/-. BY THE COURT : 14. Bherulal and Devprakash are held guilty of the contempt of court and each of them shall pay a fine of Rs. 25/-. They shall further bear the costs of the Government which we assess at Rs. 30/-. Only one set of costs shall be realised. Order accordingly.