JUDGMENT 1. Rule was issued by a Division Bench of this Court on April 30, 1981 to Shri Dashrath Chand Singhvi, contemner, as to why he should not be punished for Contempt of Court in accordance with sub-rule (3) of Rule 324 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules. 2. The aforesaid notice was issued to the contemner in these circumstances : In Civil Suit No. 45 of 1980. Dashrath Chand Singhvi v. Chief Accounts Officer, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others , an order was passed by the trial court on February 13, 1981 under which, the case was adjourned to February 27, 1981 on the application of defendant No. 5 for setting aside the ex-parte order passed earlier and on the application of defendant Nos. 5, 9 and 10 to adjourn the case for engaging a lawyer. A revision petition was tiled against the aforesaid order in this Court which was registered as S.B. Civil Revision No. 98 of 1981. A learned Single Judge of this Court (M.C. Jain, J.) under his order dated March 2, 1981, mentioning the grievance of Dashrath Chand Singhvi before him that there was no ground for the adjournment granted by trial court, dismissed the revision petition summarily. It appears that on February 27, 1981, the trial court allowed both the applications : one of defendants Nos. 5, 9 and 10 for engaging a lawyer and the other of defendant No. 5 for setting aside the ex-parte order on payment of Rs. 15/- as costs to the plaintiff, A revision petition was filed against the aforesaid order in this Court by Shri Dashrath Chand Singhvi and the same was registered as revision petition No. 145 of 1981. In the grounds of the revision (Para 6), he made the following allegations:- " ;g gS fd 13&2&81 dk vkns'k fo}ku eqaflQ ds fnekx dh 'kSrkuh dks tkfgj djrk Fkk] ftlds dkj.k mls jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; esa pqukSrh nh xbZ] ysfdu ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifr Jh feykipUn tSu us viuh U;k;kf;d csbZekuh dk ifjp; nsrs gq, lgh rF;ksa dks vius fu.kZ; esa izdV u djds Hkz"V eqaflQ eftLV~sV tkykSj dks laj{k.k iznku fd;kA " That revision petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court (Justice D.P. Gupta, as he then was) dismissed the revision petition making some observations therein. It appears that because of the allegations in para 6 of the revision petition No. 145/81 which allegations have already been extracted above, the Honble Chief Justice after perusal of the aforesaid para of the writ petition, ordered that is being a case of criminal contempt under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short, the Act) should be heard and decided by a Division Bench constituting of two Judges of this Court (S.K. Mal Lodha and (Miss) Kanta Kumari Bhatnagar, JJ.). The aforesaid Bench, on April 30, 1981, ordered issue of a show cause notice to Shri Dashrath Chand Singhvi, the contemner. The contemner appeared in this Court on September 29, 1981 and raised an objection that the notice has not been issued to him in accordance with sub-rule (3) of Rule 325 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules. Therefore, it was ordered that a fresh notice be issued to the contemner under sub-rule (3) of Rule 325 of the aforesaid Rules, incorporating para 6 of the memo of revision which has already been extracted above. On the request of the contemner, two months time was allowed to him. Notice thereafter was issued to the contemner and the service was effected on him. The contemner appeared in the Court and raised various objections to the effect that the case should , not be heard by a Bench of which Justice S.K. Mal Lodha is a member because, the said Judge was an interested party. That Bench, therefore, declined to hear the case and the case came before us. 3. On 15.1.1982, Shri Dashrath Chand Singhvi, the contemner, was present. We heard him. He raised an objection that the service of the notice has not been effected properly and be has not received a copy of the notice. We asked the contemner to explain the allegations made by him against the Munsif and a Judge of this Court (Mr. Justice M.C. Jain) but the contemner refused to say anything on merits and repeated that he should be allowed time to file reply to the notice and a copy of the notice should be given to him. 4. It appears that the grievance of the contemner that he has not received a notice, is not correct. Justice M.C. Jain) but the contemner refused to say anything on merits and repeated that he should be allowed time to file reply to the notice and a copy of the notice should be given to him. 4. It appears that the grievance of the contemner that he has not received a notice, is not correct. From the notice which was sent to him from the court on September 25, 1981, it appears that he received a copy and thereafter signed it on September 26, 1981, in token of having received a copy of the notice. That apart, it further appears that the contemner, on May 4, 1981, applied for inspection of this file and inspected the file on May 5, 1981. Thus, we are satisfied that the contemner did received a notice in the proper form and the said notice contained para 6 of the revision petition No. 145 of 1981, extracted above. 5. On 7.1.1982, the contemner filed some preliminary objections, including an objection of not having been served with a notice to show cause as to why content proceedings be not taken against him. We have considered the application of the contemner and it does not contain any cause so far as the notice issued to the contemner is concerned. We have also said earlier that the notice was served on him and he had also inspected the file and he very well knew the nature of the allegations against him. 6. Now, the question is as to whether the contemner has committed a Contempt of this Court 'Criminal Contempt' is defined in Section 2 (c) of the Act. It means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which scandalises or tends to scandalises or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court; or prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding or interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner. Casting aspersions on the integrity of a subordinate judicial officer or of a judge of this Court is clearly criminal contempt. Casting aspersions on the integrity of a subordinate judicial officer or of a judge of this Court is clearly criminal contempt. Where in a memo of revision to this Court against an order of a subordinate court, the contemner makes allegations against Judge of this Court, it is clear case of contempt. In Baradakanta v. Registrar, ADR 1974 SC 710 , their Lordship observed that where in a memo of appeal to the Supreme Court against an order in contempt proceedings, the contemner alleged that he fears bias from the High Court, the aspersions amounted to gross scandalisation of the High Court. In the instant case, in para 6 of the revision petition which part has been extracted earlier, it has been mentioned that the order of the Munsif dated February 13, 1981 gives an account of devil-mindedness of the Munsif and that is why it was challenged in the High Court but the Hon'ble Judge M. C. Jain gave an account of judicial dishonesty and without reproducing the true facts in his order, has extended his protection to dishonest Munsif Magistrate, Jalore. Thus, in the aforesaid para 6 of the revision petition, the contemner has not only made allegations against the Munsif that he is a dishonest Munsif and Magistrate but has also cast aspersions on a sitting Judge of this Court (Mr. Justice M.C. Jain) in so for as it is mentioned in the para that the said Judge did not mention the true facts in his order and it was done to protect a dishonest Munsif. It is also mentioned therein that in doing so, the learned Judge of this Court gave account of his judicial dishonesty. This is clear criminal contempt and inspite of opportunity having been granted to the contemner, he did not care to explain as to how and under what circumstances lie made the above aspersion upon a subordinate judicial officer as well as a Judge of this Court. It appears that the contemner not only does not feel sorry but his conduct throughout the proceedings before this Court has been contemner as shall be shown presently. It appears that the contemner not only does not feel sorry but his conduct throughout the proceedings before this Court has been contemner as shall be shown presently. When the contemner was given a notice to show cause as to why he should not be punished for contempt, and the Chief Justice constituted a Bench consisting of Justice S.K. Mal Lodha and Justice (Miss) Kanta Bhatnagar, he not only levelled charges of impartiality against one of them (Justice S.K. Mal Lodha, J.) but also mentioned in para 22 of his reply that the Chief Justice (Hon'ble Justice K.D. Sharma) connived with the said Judge in satisfying his wish to take revenge with Dasharth Chand Singhvi. In para 22, the contemner has said as under:- " ;g fd vnkyr dh ekfu gkfu ds izdj.k 302@81 dh Mh0ch0 dks ns[kus ls ;g lkQ tkfgj gksrk gS fd ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifr Jhd`".key yks<+k ds fy, ;g ;qfDr fcYdqy pfjrkFkZ gksrh gS fd ufugky esa [kkuk gS vkSj ekWa ijkslus okyh gS & vFkkZr~ Jh Jhd`".keu yks<+k dks cnyk ysus dh euksdkeuk dks lg;ksx fn;kA ;|fi ekuuh; eq[; U;k;kf/kifr lgh rF;ksa ls vufHkK jgs gksaxsA " Not only this, when the case came up before this Bench on January 15, 1982, and this court passed an order recording the order-sheet of even date and adjourned the case for orders, Shri Dashrath Chand Singhvi sent registered letters to the two of us, constituting the Bench, and has also enclosed a copy of the same letter alleged to have been addressed by him to the President, and the Chief Justice of India and in para 8 has mentioned that this Bench should not have been constituted by the Acting Chief Justice and one of the Judges (Acting Chief Justice D.P. Gupta) did not record and the order-sheet, the objections raised by Shri Singhvi and also obtained the signatures of the other Judge (M.B. Sharma, J) It will be proper to extract here the relevant part of para 8,:- " 15&1&82 dks esjs lkFk esa ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifr Jh Mh&ih0 xqIrk us cnek'kh dh gSA mUgksaus esjs }kjk mBkbZ xbZ vkifRr;ksa dks vius vkns'k esa lekos'k ugha fd;k gS vkSj ;g Hkh lEHko gS fd l= U;k;kf/kifr Jh egsUnzHkw"k.k 'kekZ ds gLrk{kj Hkh mUgksaus 15&1&82 ds vkns'k ij izkIr dj fy, gksaA " Again, in para II of objections in his letter addressed to the President of India and others, one copy each of which has been sent to both of us, it is mentioned by the contemner that one of us (Justice D. P. Gupta) is interested party in the case. Let this letter form a part of the record. 7. We have mentioned this conduct of the contemner only to show that not only he does not feel sorry and repentant but again and again, against one or the other of the Judges, he is imputing allegations in the discharge of judicial functions. Let this letter form a part of the record. 7. We have mentioned this conduct of the contemner only to show that not only he does not feel sorry and repentant but again and again, against one or the other of the Judges, he is imputing allegations in the discharge of judicial functions. We are conscious that we have to see as to whether a charge of contempt as levelled against the contemner is made out or not and we have also reproduced para 6 of the revision petition on which the show-cause notice was issued to the contemner. Casting aspersions on the integrity of a Judge or his impartiality in dealing with cases is a criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. The contemner has not been able to show cause, inspite of having been granted a opportunity not only in writing but orally in the court when he was asked to say anything on January 15, 1982. We, therefore, hold the contemner Shri Dashrath Chand Singhvi guilty of criminal contempt of the Munsif as well as a sitting Judge of this court (Justice M. C. Jain).The question is as to what punishment should be awarded to the contemner in this case. Looking to the gravity of the offence and the conduct of the contemner thorough out these proceedings, we sentence the contemner under section 12 the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment.Order accordingly. *******