ORDER H.R. Krishnan, J. This is a proceeding under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, against the writer of letter to the District Judge, Ratlam making contemptful and false allegations against Shri R.G. Pawar, Additional District Judge posted at Mandsaur. Called upon to show cause, he has written a letter to the High Court which, if anything, is even more seriously contemptful. He has, after evasions, appeared before this Court in person and repeated substantially, the same allegations as are contained in the two letters. The opposite party styles himself "Mangilal Seewar, Vidyarthi, P.A. C.I.D., Well-famous, successful, and Extra-ordinary Astrologer and Specialist in Palmistry etc., etc.,". We were interested in knowing what this title "P.A. C.I.D." meant, and he explained by saying that he used to be a person assisting the C.I.D. Be that as it may it appears from his second letter and his statement before us, though not from his first letter, that he had some quarrels leading to a criminal case before the Magistrate at Manasa against one Laxman son of Ramvilas Mahajan, apparently in respect of some land, and a second one under Section 323, Indian Penel Code against one Gopal. The former had been convicted by a Magistrate and as usual went in appeal. The appellate Court, namely Shri R.G. Pawar, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mandsaur', allowed the appeal. In the second case, a fine had been imposed by the Magistrate and the Sessions Judge reduced it to Rs.25 out of which again, it appears only Rs.20 had been realised. These are all usual happenings in criminal litigation but they had a very peculiar reaction on the opposite party. He wrote a postcard to the District Judge, Ratlam, in whose division the particular Additional Sessions Judge is working. It has a letterpress which has already been described, and a small impression of a tricolour flag and a note at the top "Gopaniya" (confidential), though it passes one's understanding how a postcard can be confidential. It reads: To Shri District and Sessions Judge, Ratlam, Jay Swadesh, In Revision No. 94/75, Shri R.G. Pawar, Sessions Judge, Mandsaur has committed certain mistakes. I made a prayer that the case should be re-heard against the accused and all the witnesses; but the Judge dismissed it because the accused is a member of the Jansangh. It reads: To Shri District and Sessions Judge, Ratlam, Jay Swadesh, In Revision No. 94/75, Shri R.G. Pawar, Sessions Judge, Mandsaur has committed certain mistakes. I made a prayer that the case should be re-heard against the accused and all the witnesses; but the Judge dismissed it because the accused is a member of the Jansangh. In fact, the accused was absent on the dates fixed for argument and judgment. Thus, he (the Judge) is a great secret enemy of the Congress and it is therefore necessary that he should be punished for this. I have further evidence to show that he is without any sense of justice. A mere reading of the letter would show that it is not merely a case of somebody reporting in good faith, to a superior officer, but alleging that the Judge was partial, simply because the decision or decisions have gone against the writer of the letter. Called upon to show cause, the opposite party sent a long letter, besides requesting that he should be addressed only in Hindi and not in English, and further if he is asked to appear in Court, travelling allowance should be sent. He gives the following account, ostensibly in explanation of why he wrote the letter to District Judge: I sent this letter, that is No. 32 of 10-4-1958 to the District Judge to the following effect-"Shri R.G. Pawar delivered judgment in Case No. 94/57 on 4-5-1958 even in the absence of the accused Laxman and his counsel Kamargaonkar. He dismissed the case without paying attention to my application. This happened twice. Does it not, therefore, appear to be a case of partiality or bribery ? Shri Kamargaonkar pleader is the secretary of tha Jansangh at Mandsaur. The accused is also a member of Jansangh. I, therefore, believe that the Brahmins of sought (Sic) are naturally united. No wonder, if bribe has been taken from the Bania, both by the pleader and the Judge of the same caste after joining hands- I suspect it to be a Jansangh-Congress affair. In the other Criminal Case 275 of 1957, the judgment was passed on 15-5-1957 by the Manasa Magistrate and the accused was convicted under Section 323 and sentenced to a fine of Rs.60. In the other Criminal Case 275 of 1957, the judgment was passed on 15-5-1957 by the Manasa Magistrate and the accused was convicted under Section 323 and sentenced to a fine of Rs.60. This was because he came to the temple of Shri Dwarikadhish and wanted Prasad; there was no prasad in stock and so he caught me by neck, Shri R.G. Pawar heard the Appeal (69/57) from this and even appointed a pleader at Government cost and maintained the conviction; but reduced the fine to Rs.26 out of which again, only Rs.20 were realised. From reliable sources it is known that Rs.5 remission was granted in my absence. This is another case of partiality. Gopal (probably, the accused in the second case) is a member of the Jansangh. Kamargaonkar is the secretary of the Jansangh. Shri Pawar is his friend. Can these and the appointment of Government pleader in private case be anything but partiality ? I have a third proof also; but it if secret. It will come forward when necessary. Then I shall prove it. Till then, it will be secret. After some evasion, the party has appeared before us and has said that he has noting to add to what is contained in his letters. He sticks to the charge of partiality and partisanship towards Jansangh on which there is no evidence whatsoever. Asked, whether there is any more proof or evidence for supporting his allegations, the opposite party says he has none. At the same time, be does not show any sign of penitence. Thousands of cases are brought, and often enough appeals are allowed and sometime sentences are reduced. It is also common happening that fines are not always realised and the person concerned suffers the imprisonment in default. Here there was nothing unusual; in any case, the applicant could have sought legal remedies. The allegations of partisanship and caste-faction are made without any basis. In the present case, it is fantastic, because Judge is not a member of any political party and has no animus against any other party. This sort of letter writing is definitely calculated to interfere with independent and fearless administration of justice and should be punished adequately. A perusal of these letters did give a first impression that the writer is one of those feeble-minded people that indulge in clownishness. This sort of letter writing is definitely calculated to interfere with independent and fearless administration of justice and should be punished adequately. A perusal of these letters did give a first impression that the writer is one of those feeble-minded people that indulge in clownishness. But the repetition of the baseless applications and sheer absence of any trace of regret, shows that the opposite party is something worse than a mere buffoon. He has spoken ill of law Courts without any justification and in a manner definitely calculated to interfere in the administration of justice. It is a serious form of contempt of Court. I would, therefore, convict him under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 and sentence him to simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.50. In default of payment of fine, he should suffer further simple imprisonment for three weeks.