ORDER Bannurmath, J. Heard the learned Counsel Sri. S. Doreraju appearing for the accused. 2. This Contempt Petition is initiated suo-motu by this Court on receipt of a notice addressed to three Hon’ble Judges of this Court making scandalous allegations against them. A copy of this notice was also sent by the accused to the Registrar (General). On going through the same, as it was felt that it is scandalous in nature bringing down the dignity of the Judges in particular and the Judicial Institution In general, this contempt case was registered against him. 3. Notice was ordered to the accused, who on appearance as party-in-person filed a detailed statement of objections. After going through the objections and hearing the accused in person, as this Court was not satisfied with the explanation offered and was also prima-facie of the view that the material in question was scandalous, per se, proceeded to frame charges. The trial was held. During the trial, the Registrar (General) was examined as CW-1 and he deposes as to how the contempt action was initiated on receipt of the letter addressed by the accused. In the cross-examination of CW-1 by the learned Counsel for the accused who has entered appearance at this stage, it was pointed out that there were certain grammatical mistakes and because of the same, the entire contents of the letter become meaningless. However, this suggestion was denied by CW-1 inter alia stating that inspite of the grammatical mistakes, the meaning conveyed is very clear. No material worthwhile to hold the accused not guilty is brought out in the cross-examination apart from the aforesaid suggestion. After closing of the case by the prosecution, the accused examined himself as DW-1 and stated that he is working as a Senior Assistant for the last 23 years at Karnataka State Co-operative Marketing Federation. It is stated that he is a B.Com Graduate and has after reading the contents of the impugned notice, put his signature. He further states that as he had three cases pending in the Family Court, and was not able to get favourable result, he got frustrated and on the advise of his friends Sri. Govinda and Sri. Venkataswamy of Bagepalli, the said letter came to be drafted by him. It is further stated that he was in confused state of mind and hence, he may be pardoned if there is any mistake. Govinda and Sri. Venkataswamy of Bagepalli, the said letter came to be drafted by him. It is further stated that he was in confused state of mind and hence, he may be pardoned if there is any mistake. Before considering the merits, arguments vis-à-vis evidence in this matter, we have to keep in mind the pronouncements of the Apex Court in respect of Contempt matters, especially scandalising the Courts or lowering the dignity of the Courts. In this regard, the pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of DR. D. C. SAXENA Vs. HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA, (1996) 5 SCC 216 is worth noting. After referring to number of earlier pronouncements, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered in detail, the definition of Criminal Contempt and observed thus: “Scandalising the Court is a convenient way of describing a publication which, although it does not relate to any specific case either past or pending or any specific Judge, is a scurrilous attack on the judiciary as a whole, which is calculated to undermine the authority of the Courts and public confidence in the administration of justice. Contempt of Court is to keep the blaze of glory around the judiciary and to deter people from attempting to render justice contemptible in the eyes of the public. A libel upon a Court is a reflection upon the sovereign people themselves. The contemnor conveys to the people that the administration of justice is weak or in corrupt ‘hands. The fountain of justice is tainted.” 4. It further holds: “39. Therefore, it is of necessity to regulate the judicial process free from fouling the fountain of justice to ward off the people from undermining the confidence of the public in the purity of fountain of justice and its due administration. Justice thereby remains pure, untainted and unimpeded. The punishment for contempt, therefore, is not for the purpose of protecting or vindicating either the dignity of the Court as a whole or an individual judge of the Court from attack on his personal reputation but it is intended to protect the public who are subject to the jurisdiction of the Court and to prevent undue interference with the administration of justice. If the authority of the Court remains undermined or impeded the fountain of justice gets sullied creating distrust and disbelief in the mind of the litigant public or the right-thinking public at large for the benefit of the people. Independence of the judiciary for due course of administration of justice must be protected and remain unimpaired. Scandalising the Court, therefore, is a convenient expression of scurrilous attack on the majesty of justice calculated to undermine its authority and public confidence in the administration of justice. The malicious or slanderous publication inculcates in the mind of the people a general disaffection and dissatisfaction on the judicial people a general disaffection and dissatisfaction on the judicial determination and indisposes in their mind to obey them. If the people’s allegiance to the law is so fundamentally shaken it is the most vital and most dangerous obstruction of justice calling for urgent action. Action for contempt is not for the protection of the Judge as private individual but because they are the channels by which justice is administered to the people without fear or favour. As per the Third Schedule to the Constitution oath or affirmation is taken by the Judge that he will duly and faithfully perform the duties of the office to the best of his ability, knowledge and judgment without fear or favour, affection or ill-will and will so uphold the Constitution and the laws. In accordance therewith, judges must always remain impartial and should be known by all people to be impartial. Should they be imputed with improper motives, bias, corruption or partiality, people will lose faith in them. The judge requires a degree of detachment and objectivity which cannot be obtained if judges constantly are required to look over their shoulders for fear of harassment and abuse and irresponsible demands for prosecution or resignation. The whole administration of justice would suffer due to its rippling effect. It is for this reason that scandalising the judges was considered by Parliament to be a contempt of Court punishable with imprisonment or fine. 40. Scandalising the Court, therefore, would mean hostile criticism of judges as judges or judiciary. Any personal attack upon a judge in connection with the office he holds is dealt with under law of libel or slander. 40. Scandalising the Court, therefore, would mean hostile criticism of judges as judges or judiciary. Any personal attack upon a judge in connection with the office he holds is dealt with under law of libel or slander. Yet defamatory publication concerning the judge as a judge brings the Court or judges into contempt, a serious impediment to justice and an inroad on the majesty of justice. Any caricature of a judge calculated to lower the dignity of the Court would destroy, undermine or tend to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice or the majesty of justice. It would, therefore, be scandalising the judge as a judge, in other words, imputing partiality, corruption, bias, improper motives to a judge is - scandalisation of the Court and would be contempt of the Court. Even imputation of lack of impartiality or fairness to a judge in the discharge of his official duties amounts to contempt. The gravamen of the offence is that of lowering his dignity or authority or an affront to the majesty of justice. When the contemnor challenges the authority of the Court, he interferes with the performance of duties of judge’s office or judicial process or administration of justice or generation or production of tendency bringing the judge or judiciary into contempt. Section 2( c) of the Act, therefore, defines criminal contempt in wider articulation that any publication, whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which scandalises or tends to scandalise, 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, is a criminal contempt. Therefore, a tendency to scandalise the Court or tendency to lower the authority of the Court or tendency to interfere with or tendency to obstruct the administration of justice in any manner or tendency to challenge the authority or majesty of justice, would be a criminal contempt. The offending act apart, any tendency if it may lead to or tends to lower the authority of the Court is a criminal contempt. The offending act apart, any tendency if it may lead to or tends to lower the authority of the Court is a criminal contempt. Any conduct of the contemnor which has the tendency or produces a tendency to bring the judge or Court into contempt or tends to lower the authority of the Court would also be contempt of the Court. 41. It is true that in an indictable offence generally mens rea is an essential ingredient and requires to be proved for convicting the offender but for a criminal contempt as defined in section 2(c) any enumerated or any other-act apart, to create disaffection, disbelief in the efficacy of judicial dispensation or tendency to obstruct administration of justice or tendency to lower the authority or majesty of law by any act of the parties, constitutes criminal contempt. Thereby it excludes the proof of mens rea; What is relevant is that the offending or affront act produces interference with or tendency to interfere with the course of justice. At this stage, we would dispose of one of the serious contentions repeatedly emphasised by the petitioner that he had no personal gain to seek in the lis except said to have been fired by public duty and has professed respect for the Court. Those are neither relevant nor a defence for the offence of contempt. What is material is the effect of the offending act and not the act per se. In E.M.S. Namboodripad case (1970) 2 SCC 325 : 1970 SCC (CRL.) 451: (1971) 1 SCR 697 this Court had held in para 33 that the law punishes not only acts which had in fact interfered with the Courts and administration of justice but also those which have that tendency, that is to say, are likely to produce a particular result. It was held that the likely effect of the words must be seen and they clearly have effect of lowering the prestige of the judges and Courts in the eyes of the people. Same view was reiterated in Sammbhu Nath Jha v. Kedar Prasad Sinha (1972) 1 SCC 573 : 1972 SCC (CRL.) 337. As stated earlier, imputation of corrupt or improper motives in judicial conduct would impair the efficacy of judicial dispensation and due protection of the liberties of the citizen or due administration of justice. Same view was reiterated in Sammbhu Nath Jha v. Kedar Prasad Sinha (1972) 1 SCC 573 : 1972 SCC (CRL.) 337. As stated earlier, imputation of corrupt or improper motives in judicial conduct would impair the efficacy of judicial dispensation and due protection of the liberties of the citizen or due administration of justice. This paramount public interest is protected by the definition in Section 2( c) of the Act. It is, therefore, not necessary to establish actual intention on the part of ‘the contemnor to interfere with the administration of justice. Making reckless allegations or vilification of the conduct of the Court or the judge would be contempt.” 5. Keeping in mind these dictums laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we have considered the case on hand. The question therefore, to be considered is to whether the imputation referred to in the notice have necessary tendency imputing or tendency to impute the public confidence in the administration of justice or would create disbelief in efficacy of judicial administration or lower the authority or interfere with the Majesty by the Court? 6. Therefore, the Court is required to consider whether the imputations by the contemnor are calculated to bring or have the effect to bring the Court into contempt or casting imputations on the administration of justice. 7. In this regard, the Court is required to consider the nature of imputations, words used, intention of making such imputation or whether the contemnor foresees the possibility of his act and whether he was reckless as to either the result or had foresight like any other fact in issue, is to be inferred from the facts and the evidence emerging in the case. 8. In this regard, as per the charges framed, the following words and sentences in the notice issued by the accused were found to be derogating bringing down the majesty of the individual Judge’s name as well as the Institution. “I had filed petitions, writ petitions writ appeal”, number of memo, number of interim application, it constitute my effort but yours had not been effort to judge what is right and wrong. Yours have no knowledge the objective of W.P. and W.A. and yours pass part and partial order on 12.6.07 in W.A.1758 and in W.P.No.3131 of 2006 as High Court Judges. It is shameful. Yours have no knowledge the objective of W.P. and W.A. and yours pass part and partial order on 12.6.07 in W.A.1758 and in W.P.No.3131 of 2006 as High Court Judges. It is shameful. Yours are not above the individual, yours are become servitude to customary morality order in which there is no surety that it will always be charged with sincerity and .purity of motive, yours are as a motive force reinforces the moral will in various ways. . Yours are as Agents of anti-social order, Hindu social order, isolation order, yours are students of Manu philosophy, therefore had been follow and practice untouchability, unseeability un approachability of minor children’s your interest lies in a class, suppressed and sacrificed minor children in the interest of yours. Yours are become darkness and defeat to answer to my questions and argument before Court there fore yours involved in fraud and deceive, yours are as Judges had neglected misbehave and insult to materialistic philosophy of law because which was written by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. It constitute yours seem to suffer from a kind of mania for what is effete and antiquated and move on old rut, yours are as Judges had not been respect .for minor children’s personality therefore yours are band of bobbers in the society. Hence yours stand for condemn in number of times and Accordingly free social order and from the point of view of Justice yours are having necessary to reconstruction of mental attitudes. Yours are judges to be real yours should be shows ability capacity of knowledge power and authority, Judgeness of High Court of Karnataka before dialecticians, logicians materialistic philosophers, revolutionists experience uneducated persons, proletarians and organizations .which are effort to reconstruction of society but not in the chair in the chamber of Court, in minors case, that is what says the materialistic philosophy of law? What are real normative norms? What is meaning and definition of Justice? What is a free social order, what are fundamental essentials of free social order? Yours are inimical to quality antagonistic to liberty apposed to fraternity of minor children’s. Yours are motive force, reinforce to anti social order to pervades all departments of social life, every side of social life is protected against the danger of equality.” 9. What is a free social order, what are fundamental essentials of free social order? Yours are inimical to quality antagonistic to liberty apposed to fraternity of minor children’s. Yours are motive force, reinforce to anti social order to pervades all departments of social life, every side of social life is protected against the danger of equality.” 9. It is to be noted that even after issuance of the notice of suo motu contempt, in the reply dated 17.3.2008 filed by the accused, the accused after reiterating Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Philosophy culled out from his various books, tries to substantiate his allegations and at the end states that “wherefore, I the accused pray that accordingly the Legal Philosophy of Dr. B.R Ambedkar, I have no knowledge about my act is contempt of Court. Hence this Hon’ble Court be pleased to condone me and prevent the disaster me and my minor children’s life OR this Hon’ble Court be pleased refer this case to Hon’ble President and Parliament because the matter purely relating to Legal Philosophy, Writing, Speeches of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (in social justice of minors case) which are admitted and published by the Government of Maharashtra and Karnataka, in the interest of justice.” 10. In the instant case, by reading the imputations in the notice/ letter, not only the accused has called three Hon’ble Judges of this Court as agents of anti-social order, Hindu Social Order, Isolation order but has also alleged that they have been following practice of untouchability. Further he has alleged that the Judges are involved in fraud and deceit, neglected misbehaviour and insult to materialistic philosophy of law. The accused further states that the Hon’ble Judges suffer from a kind of mania. At the end, he states that “Yours are inimical to quality antagonistic to liberty apposed to fraternity of minor children s. Yours are motive force, reinforce to anti social order to pervades all departments of social life, every side of social life is protected against the danger of equality. 11. Thus, the words, if framed in the context of the defence taken, clearly requires no further analysis as to whether they are scandalous or derogatory in nature, thereby undermining people’s confidence in administration of justice and bringing the Court into disrepute. 12. As held by the Apex Court in the case of BRAHMA PRAKASH SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs. 11. Thus, the words, if framed in the context of the defence taken, clearly requires no further analysis as to whether they are scandalous or derogatory in nature, thereby undermining people’s confidence in administration of justice and bringing the Court into disrepute. 12. As held by the Apex Court in the case of BRAHMA PRAKASH SHARMA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, AIR 1945 SC 10, as long back as in the year 1954, has held that “scandalising might manifest itself in various ways but, in substance, it is an attack on individual Judges or the Court as a whole with or without reference to particular cases casting unwarranted and defamatory aspersions upon the character or ability of the Judges.” 13. In our view, there cannot be any second opinion that these remarks or the writings of the accused clearly are scandalous and as such, it is to be held that the accused has committed Contempt of Court. 14. At this stage, Sri. S. Doreraju, learned Counsel appearing for the accused argued that as the writings was not by the accused himself but at the instance of two friends, he cannot be held responsible for the same, especially taking into consideration, the agitated and frustrated mind of the accused involved in three cases. 15. It is to be noted that except stating that two of his friends advised him, there is absolutely no material placed before this Court. Even if such advise was given to the accused, who as per his own admission, is a B.Com Graduate, working in a important Institution like Karnataka State Co-operative Marketing Federation as Senior Assistant for the last 23 years ought not have used scandalous words bringing down the reputation of this Court. Hence, we find there is absolutely no merit in this contention. Though it was initially contended that the letters are vague and looking into the grammatical mistakes, a& it does not convey any meaning, the same cannot be held as contemptuous in nature. We do not agree with this contention of the learned Counsel. Even though there are grammatical mistakes in construction of sentences, but the meaning of the accused wanted to convey in the said notice is very clear. 16. Hence, we find that the accused has committed contempt of this Court and is liable to be punished for the same. We do not agree with this contention of the learned Counsel. Even though there are grammatical mistakes in construction of sentences, but the meaning of the accused wanted to convey in the said notice is very clear. 16. Hence, we find that the accused has committed contempt of this Court and is liable to be punished for the same. We hold accused guilty of the offence of Criminal Contempt as defined under section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 17. We have heard Sri. S. Dore Raju, learned Counsel for the accused regarding sentence. 18. It is submitted that as the accused was of disturbed mind, writing of alleged imputed letter was not deliberate and as he has realised his mistake, his apology can be accepted. 19. It is to be noted that this apology has come very belatedly. At the outset, when this Court issued notice of contempt to the accused, he has practically justified writing the letter and has reiterated his intentions by quoting in extensive Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s Philosophy and again on the basis of the act, substantiate his imputations. 20. Having regard to the gravity of the contemptuous statements, the recklessness with which they are made, the intemperamentness of the language and the contemnor being a responsible official and a B.Com Graduate, we do not think that mere punishment of fine would be adequate. In our view, a contemnor, such as the present, must also undergo imprisonment. 21. In the result, the accused who is held guilty for the Criminal Contempt is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a month and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/ - (Rupees two thousand only), in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. 22. The Registrar (Judicial), who is present in the Court is directed to take the accused in custody to undergo the sentence.