JUDGEMENT : SHINDE, J. The facts of the case which has given rise to these proceedings are as follows : 2. On 20th August 1931 the Government Railway Police Bina, forwarded Chandrasen and 3 other accused charged under S. 451 Penal Code to the Court of the Railway Magistrate Lashkar and requested for their remand. On the same day an application for bail was moved on behalf of the accused which was fixed for hearing on 31st August. On the 31st August at about 8-30 a.m. two persons called at the residence of the Railway Magistrate. When the Railway Magistrate saw them one Rajjanlal after some casual talk began to plead for the accused Chandrasen and requested that he might be released on bail. The Railway Magistrate told them that no person who was alleged to have committed a non-bailable offence could be released on bail. On this reply Rajjanlal got up as if to go away, and asked his companion Bhimsen to go ahead. When Bhimsen went downstairs Rajjanlal uttered these words : The Railway Magistrate replied that no Government servant could be humiliated if he followed the prescribed procedure. Being annoyed at Rajjanlal's conduct he asked Rajjanlal to go away. After this Rajjanlal went away. This incident was reported by the Railway Magistrate to the District and Sessions Judge who has forwarded it in original with his opinion that the conduct of Rajjanlal amounted to a contempt of Court. A notice was issued to Rajjanlal to show cause. In reply to the notice Rajjanlal appeared and has submitted an unconditional apology. 3. Mr. Anand, who appears for Rajjanlal, raised a point of law. He contends that as the act of the accused is punishable under the Penal Code, this Court cannot take cognizance of contempt committed by the accused under sub-s. (3) of S. 2, Contempt of Courts Act, Gwalior. The High Court cannot take cognizance of contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a Court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Gwalior Penal Code. The gist of the sub-section is that where the act of the accused is punishable under the Code as contempt, the High Court cannot take any cognizance under the Contempt of Courts Act. The gist of the sub-section is that where the act of the accused is punishable under the Code as contempt, the High Court cannot take any cognizance under the Contempt of Courts Act. The learned counsel was not able to show us that the act of the accused was punishable as contempt under the Penal Code. Consequently the contention raised by the counsel of Rajjanlal cannot be upheld. 4. It is true that Rajjanlal has tendered unconditional apology but his act is most reprehensible. In William Taylor v. Asmedh Koonwar, 4 WR 86, Norman, J. made following observation : "It is contrary to the practice of all Courts of Justice, unfair to an adversary, a contempt of Court, highly dangerous to the administration of justice that a suitor on any pretext whatever should communicate with a Judge, either by letter or in conversation, or in any manner whatsoever other than, by public proceedings in open Court, respecting the merits of any case in which he is interested and which is either pending in the Court of such Judge or likely to come before him." In Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi v. Banwarilal, AIR 1948 Oudh 114 Gulam Hussain, C.J. and Misra, J., hold that a private communication by a stranger or a witness addressed to a Judge which is calculated to influence his decision, in a pending case constitutes grossest form of contempt. In Emperor v. Gajadhar Prasad, AIR 1939 All 247 Bennet, and Verma, JJ., held as follows : "Where a member of a Legislative Assembly taking advantage of his position as a member of the Assembly issues instructions to a District Magistrate in respect of a trial pending before him which can only be issued by the High Court, he is guilty of contempt of Court. No member of the Legislative Assembly has any right to interfere in such a manner in the course of the administration of Criminal Justice." In District Magistrate Sultanpur v. Ramjas Yadava, AIR 1940 oudh 178, Thomas, C.J. and Radhakrishna, J., held as follows : "A letter written by a M. L. A., at a time when proceedings are pending in Court of Magistrate asking him to drop prosecution against certain persons grossly offends against the law of Contempt." In Sub-Judge, First Class, Hoshangabad v. Jawahar Lal Ramchand, AIR 1940 Nag 407 Vivian Bose, J., held as follows : "A letter containing a threat and imputation against the Judge's impartiality that the Judge had acted unlawfully and with a view to cause him loss sent to a Judge seized of the case while he was still exercising jurisdiction in respect of it by a party to the case is the contempt of serious nature." In the course of the judgment his Lordship observed as follows : "Judges have to discharge responsible and often disagreeable duties and it is essential that they should be afforded utmost protection if the administration of Justice is to remain independent, clean, fearless, unbiassed and impartial." There is no doubt that the act of the contemner in this case is most reprehensible. Although he has tendered an unqualified apology it does not entitle the offender to a discharge as a matter of right. Where the contempt is of a grave character, in the interest of administration of justice it is but proper that he should be punished in spite of his unqualified apology. Vide AIR 1948 Oudh 114 and AIR 1940 Nag. 407. Bearing this aspect in mind and also taking note of the fact that the contemner has tendered an unqualified apology we fine him Rs. 100 and also order him to pay Rs. 50 as costs to the Deputy Government Advocate. In default of payment of fine within two weeks he is to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 5. Dixit, J. :- I agree. Order accordingly.