State v. Tribhuwan Nath Varma — 1962 DIGILAW 83 (PAT)

Judgment KAMLA SAHAI, J. 1. The opposite party has been practising as a Pleader at Sitamarhi in Muzaffarpur District. During the pendency of a contempt of Court proceeding (Original Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 9 of 1957) against him, he sent a letter dated the 4th September, 1957, which was addressed to Shri B. P. Jamuar, as the President of the Standing Committee of the High Court of Judicature at Patna. It may be mentioned that the Honble Mr. Justice B. P. Jamuar was then the Judge incharge of the English Department of this Court. The contents of the letter are as follows :- "I beg to bring to your Kind notice that on Monday the 2nd September, 1957 their Lordships Justice B. P. Jamuar, and Justice H. K. Choudhary observed that Mr. B. P. Jamuar, President of the Standing Committee of the High Court and Mr. H. K. Choudhary, till 2-9-56 Registrar of the High Court did something in connection with allegations made by me and referred to in my show cause filed on affidavit before their Lordships and therefore, I call upon you to let me know by return of mail as to what actions did you take as regards my allegations put before the High Court since 26th January 1955. I further want to let you know that any delay in compliance will be treated as connivance and may be brought before Honble the Chief Justice Supreme Court of India and his companion judges for disciplinary action." 2. The 2nd Assistant Registrar, by his letter No. 9452, dated the 10th September, 1957, sent to the address of the opposite party, referred to the latters letter of the 4th September, and requested him to see the Registrar in his chambers at 11 A.M. on Friday, the 13th September, 1957, or soon thereafter at the same time on any other date. In reply to this letter, the opposite party, in his letter dated the 26th September, 195/, addressed to the Registrar, said as follows :- "I am unable to attend your office as directed by Mr. B. P. Jamuar through the first Assistant Registrar High Court before the Puja." Please let me know the following "1. Have you read the records referred to in my show cause in Cr. Misc. Jurisdiction Case No. 9/57? If not please read carefully. 2. B. P. Jamuar through the first Assistant Registrar High Court before the Puja." Please let me know the following "1. Have you read the records referred to in my show cause in Cr. Misc. Jurisdiction Case No. 9/57? If not please read carefully. 2. What was the result of my letter to C. J. on 26-l-557 (final). "3. Do my telegram to C. J. in Dec. 56. "4. Of all letters referred to in my letter sent to post in the file of Orig. Cr. Misc. Jurisdiction Case No. 9/577 "5. Have you read the copy of my letter sent to the D. J. Muzaffarpur on 20-12-56 (Very import.). If not please call for it and read it. "A delay in reply may lead to serious actions." 3. A Full Bench of this Court, by its order dated the 16th December, 1957, ordered notice to issue to the opposite party to show cause why he should not be proceeded against under Section 13(f) of the Legal Practitioners Act. In pursuance of this order, a notice was actually issued on the 16th January, 1958, by which the opposite party was called upon to show cause why action should not be taken against him under Section 13(f) of the Legal Practitioners Act with regard to the letter dated the 4th September 1957, addressed to Mr. B. P. Jamuar and with regard to the letter dated the 26th September, 1957, addressed by him to the Registrar. This has given rise to Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 684 of 1957. 4. Mr. S. K. Prasad, who was then the District Judge of Muzaffarpur, submitted a report, dated the 5th August, 1958, to this Court in which he held that a case of Misconduct had been established against the opposite party on the basis of the telegrams dated the 11th June, 1956, and the 13th December 1956, which he sent to this Court. The contents of the telegram dated the 11th June, 1955, addressed to the Registrar of this Court, are : "Interpolation ordersheet small cause 108 of 55 Munsif first Sitamarhi suspected. Sharp inspection solicited. Details while inspection. Delay may defeat." The telegram, dated the 13th December, 1956, which is addressed by the opposite party to the Chief Justice or this Court, reads : In the name of God, Munsif first Sitamarhi decreed Title Suit Ex parte fraudulently. Suit compromised during inquiry. Sharp inspection solicited. Details while inspection. Delay may defeat." The telegram, dated the 13th December, 1956, which is addressed by the opposite party to the Chief Justice or this Court, reads : In the name of God, Munsif first Sitamarhi decreed Title Suit Ex parte fraudulently. Suit compromised during inquiry. Transfer filed in Title No. 4041/52. Fraudulently delivered judgment before date fixed other cases as well immediate suspension pending inquiry by High Court Judge solicited (Non-Bengali). Failing justice being prejudiced every day, Distt. Judge taking prejudiced view trying best ruin me because resistance. New Dist. Judge not joined yet." 5. By an order dated the 7th October, 1958, a Full Bench of this Court directed a notice to issue to the opposite party on the basis of the aforesaid report to show cause why he should not be proceeded against under Section 13(f) of the Legal Practitioners Act. This has given rise to Civil Reference No. 2 of 1958. 6. Both the miscellaneous judicial case and the Civil Reference have been heard together, and this judgment will govern them. 7. Mr. S. K, Basu was the Presiding Officer of the Court of 1st Munsif at Sitamarhi at the relevant time. In Title Suit No. 48 of 1954 of that Court, the opposite party was guardian ad litem of the minor defendants. He appeared on behalf of the plaintiff in Small Cause Court Suit No. 108 of 1955 of the same Court, in Title Suit No. 133 of 1954, he was appointed as a pleader commissioner. It appears that certain incidents took place in those suits which led the opposite party to nurse a sense of grievance against Mr. Basu. It is unnecessary to mention what happened in Title Suits Nos. 48 and 133, but reference has to be made as to what happened in Small Cause Court Suit No. 108. On the 8th June, 1956, the plaintiff of that suit was absent, and the opposite party claims that he received information that the plaintiff was ill. The opposite party, therefore, filed a petition for time, and submitted a medical certificate along with that petition. After hearing the opposite party, the Munsif S. K. Basu, mentioned in his order of the same date that the submission of the plaintiffs lawyer was that a pleader commissioner should be appointed to examine the plaintiff on commission. The opposite party, therefore, filed a petition for time, and submitted a medical certificate along with that petition. After hearing the opposite party, the Munsif S. K. Basu, mentioned in his order of the same date that the submission of the plaintiffs lawyer was that a pleader commissioner should be appointed to examine the plaintiff on commission. Accordingly, the Munsif appointed Shri Sampati Lal Karan as Commissioner to record the plaintiffs evidence. He directed that the commissioner should record the evidence by the 10th June, 1956, and that the plaintiff was to deposit the pleader commissioners fees by the 15th June, 1956. When the pleader commissioner went to the plaintiffs house, the plaintiff was not available and a petition for time was filed before him also. From the 10th June to the 18th June Mr. Basu was on leave. On the 11th June, the pleader commissioner returned the writ unexecuted. On the same date, the opposite party filed an application for inspection of the record of that case. As Mr. Basu was absent and as the Munsif Magistrate was in charge of his file, it was only on the 12th June that he passed an order allowing inspection by the opposite party. In the meantime, however the opposite party sent the telegram of the 11th June, which I have already quoted, to the Registrar of this Court. When the opposite party inspected the record on the 12th June, he noticed that the Munsif had not signed the orders dated the 1st June, the 8th June and the 9th June. He recorded this fact in the margin of the order-sheet. On his return from leave, Mr. Basu joined his office of the 19th June, and he then put his signatures under all the three orders with the 19th June as the date on which he had put them. On the 28th June, the plaintiff filed an application before the Munsif for permission to cancel the power which he had given to the opposite party. The case was put up for hearing on the 29th June, and at the time of hearing, the opposite party did not appear. He appeared at the end of the hearing, and said that he should get compensatory fees from the plaintiff. The Munsif directed him to file a formal petition, which the opposite party, subsequently, did. The case was put up for hearing on the 29th June, and at the time of hearing, the opposite party did not appear. He appeared at the end of the hearing, and said that he should get compensatory fees from the plaintiff. The Munsif directed him to file a formal petition, which the opposite party, subsequently, did. The opposite party made certain allegations against his registered clerk, Shri Alakh Prasad, and he also made certain allegations against the plaintiff, who made counter allegations against him in several petitions. As the opposite party had,made certain allegations against the Court, the Munsif submitted a report to this Court for proceeding against the opposite party for contempt of Court. On the basis of this report, original criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 9 of 1957 was started against the opposite party by an order of this Court, dated the 4th June 1957. It may be incidentally mentioned that that proceeding was disposed by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated the 30th July, 1958. 8. On the basis of the allegations made by the plaintiff of the Small Cause Court suit against the opposite party, the Munsif drew up a proceeding under Section 14 of the Legal Practitioners Act. The opposite party showed cause in that case but did not appear at the hearing. By an order dated the 18th December, 1956, the Munsif, Mr. Basu, held some of the charges framed against the opposite party to have been proved, and recommended that the opposite party should be suspended from practice for such period as this Court thought proper. This order was placed before Mr. Ram Jiwan Sinha, who was then the District Judge of Muzaffarpore. In his order dated the 22nd March, 1957, he came to the conclusion that the charges against the opposite party were vague, and that no action was necessary. The matter rested there at that time. 9. It appears that, on the recommendation of Mr. Basu, the District Judge removed the opposite partys name from the list of pleader commissioners by an order dated the 8th December, 1956. This order was communicated to the opposite party on the 13th December, 1956. The matter rested there at that time. 9. It appears that, on the recommendation of Mr. Basu, the District Judge removed the opposite partys name from the list of pleader commissioners by an order dated the 8th December, 1956. This order was communicated to the opposite party on the 13th December, 1956. On that very day, he sent the second telegram, which I have quoted, it may be mentioned that the opposite party has stated in his show cause petition that he sent this telegram on the 18th December, but we have seen the original telegram, which was received in this Court, and we have found that it was actually despatched and received in this Court on the 13th December. 10. I have already said that, during the pendency of the contempt of Court proceeding, the opposite party addressed his letter dated the 4th September, 1957, to Mr. B. P. Jamuar and thereafter to the Registrar. 11. The opposite party has said in paragraph 4 of his show cause petition : ".....the mind is not always constant, rather it is susceptible to circumstances. Any reasonable man howsoever he may be, cannot maintain balance of mind it he begins to feel that he is being harassed and there is no one to hear him." In Paragraph 5, he has said : "That this opposite party is really very sorry for the language used by him at various stages specially in the years 1956 to 1958 because he really feels that such language cannot be used in normal mood and from the statements contained in the succeeding paras your Lordships will be convinced that the situation had made this opposite party almost desperate and it is only due to such mood that unusual languages were used. This opposite party is really ashamed of whatever happened in the past and he now sincerely assures your Lordships and promises that such nasty things will not be repeated in future." He has, however, in the subsequent paragraphs of his petition, tried to justify the allegations made in the communications on the basis of which these proceedings have been started against him. I may also state that the opposite party has tried to meet the charges referred to by Mr. I may also state that the opposite party has tried to meet the charges referred to by Mr. S. K. Basu in his order dated the 18th December, 1956, but, as I have shown, those charges are not the subject-matter of the present proceedings against the opposite party. 12 I propose to consider the several communication. sent by the opposite party in chronological order. The first communication is the telegram dated the 11th June, 1956, Mr. T. N. Sinha, the then District Judge of Muzaffarpur, went to Sitamarhi on the 30th July, 1956. He has stated in his report dated the 8th August, 1956 that the opposite party admitted before him that there was no interpolation in the order-sheet of the Small Cause Court Suit. He has also dealt with the fact that the orders dated the 1st June, the 8th June and the 9th June had not been signed by the Munsif before the 19th June, when he returned from leave. He has found that the orders that the 1st and the 9th June were routine orders. We have also read the orders, and we think that this is correct. Mr. T. N. Sinha has said that the omission to get the signature of the Munsif on these orders was due to the heavy work which the clerk concerned was burdened with at the time. There could, therefore, be no question of interpolation in those orders. The lawyers for the defence as well as the opposite party admitted that the order dated the 8th June was dictated in open Court. The opposite party has not made any allegation in this Court to the contrary. It is, therefore, clear that the allegation of interpolation contained in the telegram of the 11th June is altogether false. 13. In his show cause petition, the opposite party has made a grievance of the fact that the writ of commission was issued to the pleader commissioner, Shri Sampati Lal Karan, before the commissioners fee was deposited, but I do not see how the opposite party is concerned with this matter. There is no material before us to suggest that the Munsif had anything against the opposite party or had passed any order against him before the 11th June. Still he made a false allegation against the Munsif in the telegram. That could not be the result of a feeling of despair or harassment. 14. There is no material before us to suggest that the Munsif had anything against the opposite party or had passed any order against him before the 11th June. Still he made a false allegation against the Munsif in the telegram. That could not be the result of a feeling of despair or harassment. 14. The second communication is the telegram of the 13th December, 1956. Admittedly, the opposite party did not appear in Title Suit No. 40-41 of 1952. He has, however, stated in the telegram that the Munsif fraudulently delivered judgment in those suits before the date fixed, in view of an application for transfer. In paragraph 31(a) of his show cause petition, the opposite party has said that one of the parties went to Muzaffarpore and applied for transfer of the two suits to the District Judge, who ordered stay of further proceedings in the suits; but, before the stay order could be communicated, "the Munsif changed the date of judgment as previously fixed by removing pages from order-sheet and delivered judgment before the actual date fixed." He has said that there was a rumour to this effect, and he has further added, "God knows what was actually done by whom but this opposite party most respectfully submits that the Munsif had not earned good reputation." This shows that the opposite party had no firm basis nor any personal knowledge of the fact that the Munsif had fraudulently delivered judgment before the date fixed, but still he made such an allegation in the telegram under consideration. Surely, it was not consistent with his duties and responsibilities as a legal practitioner to make such a serious allegation against the presiding officer of a Court on the basis of nothing more than a rumour. The opposite party has made things worse by saying in the telegram about other cases also that suspicious things were being done. 15. He has further said in the telegram that the Munsif had decreed a title suit ex parte fraudulently. This appears to refer to Title Suit No. 48 of 1954. In paragraph 7 of his show cause petition, the opposite party has made a grievance of the fact that the Munsif did not look into the additional written statement which he had filed as guardian ad litem on behalf of the minor defendants. This appears to refer to Title Suit No. 48 of 1954. In paragraph 7 of his show cause petition, the opposite party has made a grievance of the fact that the Munsif did not look into the additional written statement which he had filed as guardian ad litem on behalf of the minor defendants. He has stated that he suspected that some fraud was being played on the Court by the bench-clerk but the words written by him in the telegram clearly show that his allegation then was that the Munsif himself had fraudulently passed an ex parte decree in the suit. It seems, therefore, that the opposite party has made serious allegations against the Munsif in the telegram under consideration without any basis. He has further said in the telegram that the District Judge was taking a prejudiced view, and was trying to ruin him; but there seems to be hardly any basis for this also. He could only have been thinking of the removal of his name from the list of pleader commissioner; but he should have taken appropriate action in respect of that, and should not have made an allegation that the District Judge was prejudiced against him. In fact, he did take action in the sense that he wrote a letter dated the 14th December, to the District Judge that the order of removal of his name was in contravention of Rule 16, Chapter VII, part 1, of the High Court circular. The Civil Court Registrar then replied to him that he should wait until the termination of the proceeding started by the Munsif, 1st Court of Sitamarhi. 16. In paragraph 25 of his show cause petition, the opposite party has stated that he sent the telegram on the 18th December, 1956, because of the District Judges Order, dated the 8th December, 1956, for removal of his name from the list of pleader commissioners and also because of an incident which took place between him and the Munsif on the 17th December, 1956. He has alleged in paragraph 24 that he went, on the 17th December, 1956 to the clerk incharge of miscellaneous cases, and that, while he was standing near the table of the clerk, the Munsif came with a stick in his hand, and shouted "Pakro, Pakro" whereupon he (the opposite party) quietly left the office. He has alleged in paragraph 24 that he went, on the 17th December, 1956 to the clerk incharge of miscellaneous cases, and that, while he was standing near the table of the clerk, the Munsif came with a stick in his hand, and shouted "Pakro, Pakro" whereupon he (the opposite party) quietly left the office. As I have already said, the telegram is dated the 13th December, and not dated the 18th December. It could not, therefore, have been sent because of the alleged incident of the 17th December. The opposite party does not seem to have taken any action relating to the alleged incident of the 17th December, and I am, therefore, unable to accept his statement that the incident, as alleged by him, took place on that date. 17. There is one other matter in connection with the telegram of the 13th December. The opposite party has said that enquiry should be made by a non-Bengali High Court Judge. This appears to show that the opposite party cast a reflection upon Bengali Judges of this Court. In paragraph 31(b), he has said that the word "non-Bengali" referred to the Honble Mr. Justice H. K. Chaudhuri because he was the only Bengali Judge at the time. He has further said that he was afraid of the Honble Mr. Justice H. K. Chaudhuri because Shri S. K. Basu used to state that no one could do him any harm because Mr. Justice Chaudhuri was a close friend of his father. I do not believe that Mr. Basu could make sweeping statements of the kind alleged by the opposite party; but, in any case, the opposite party should have known that he could not cast an aspersion on a High Court Judge merely because somebody else said that the Judge was a friend of his father. 18. So far as the opposite partys letter dated the 4th September, 1957, is concerned, he has used completely intemperate language. Jamuar and Chaudhuri, JJ. merely said that they would not hear the case judicially as they had dealt with the opposite partys case administratively. I do not see how the opposite party could feel any sense of desperation or harassment due to an order of this kind. It could not be construed as an order against him in any sense. Jamuar and Chaudhuri, JJ. merely said that they would not hear the case judicially as they had dealt with the opposite partys case administratively. I do not see how the opposite party could feel any sense of desperation or harassment due to an order of this kind. It could not be construed as an order against him in any sense. There was also no reason for him to show his temper in his letter which he wrote to the Registrar on the 26th September, 1957. Instead of appearing before the Registrar in order to explain what he meant by writing his letter dated the 4th September, to Mr. Justice Jamuar, he asked the Registrar merely to look into this paper and that paper, and threatened him by saying that delay would lead to serious actions. The use of the bad language in the letter is, therefore, completely unjustified. The opposite party has stated in paragraph 36 that the language used by him is the outcome "of a desperate and unusual stage of mind of this opposite party which was caused because of excess of trouble and harassment as submitted above and specially because the petitioner thought that there was none to look to his grievance." It is clear that there was no cause for him to be suffering from any sense of grievance or desperation due to any order of the High Court passed before the 4th September, much less any order passed by Jamuar and Chaudhuri, JJ. 19. Appearing on behalf of the opposite party, Mr. Pradyumna Narayan Singh has stated that the opposite party expresses his regret and tenders unqualified apology for what he has done. It seems to me, however, that the opposite party cannot be really penitent. As I have shown, he has wrongly alleged that he sent the different communications while suffering under a sense of desperation. He could not be suffering from any such sense of despair when he sent his telegram of the 11th June or from any such sense at the time when he sent his letter to Mr. Justice Jamuar on the 4th September, and his letter to the Registrar on the 26th September. Even in the show cause petition which he has filed on the 30th April 1962, he has persisted in making allegations against the Munsif, 1st Court, Sitamarhi, and against the District Judge of Muzaffarpur. Justice Jamuar on the 4th September, and his letter to the Registrar on the 26th September. Even in the show cause petition which he has filed on the 30th April 1962, he has persisted in making allegations against the Munsif, 1st Court, Sitamarhi, and against the District Judge of Muzaffarpur. The apology is, therefore, merely formal and I do not think that that can be taken as a ground for showing leniency to him. 20. The consistent course of action followed by the opposite party appears to show that there is something wrong with his balance of mind. He has no equilibrium, and he is altogether unable to act with responsibility. He seems to be a man of choleric temper. He makes false allegations against presiding officers of Courts, and he uses intemperate and insulting language against Judges and the Registrar of this Court. He fights with his clients; he fights with his clerk; and he fights with Courts. It is manifest that a man of this kind is not fit to continue to practise at the Bar. I would, therefore, dismiss him from the profession. The rules are made absolute. U.N.SINHA, J. 21 I agree. G.N.PRASAD, J. 22 I agree.