Judgment :- Sreedhar Rao, J. (1) There was a matrimonial case between the accused and his wife. The case was pending before the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Ranebennur. It is the charge that the accused with regard to his matrimonial case wrote highly defamatory letters to Sri. Shivalli, Smt. Renuka Kulkarni and Radhakrishna, the Judges, who in succession were dealing with the matrimonial case. (2) The contents of the letters contain serious and wild threat to the Judicial Officers with abusive and defamatory languages casting personal aspersions on the character and conduct of the Judges. The judicial officers sent letters received by them to the District Judge Haveri who in turn sent the said letters to the Registrar General. The above letters were in the letterhead of the accused and the tenor of the letters discloses that the accused had written defamatory letters to the Judicial Officers. On the basis of the above material suo-motu cognizance is taken. Summons was issued to the accused. (3) The accused stands charge for committing offences of criminal contempt punishable u/S. 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The accused has denied the charge. (4) The Judicial Officers to whom letters are addressed are examined as C.W.2 to C.W.4. C.W. 1 is the Registrar General. The evidence of the said witnesses discloses that the Judicial Officers had received the objectionable letters. The originals of the letters containing defamatory material are misplaced while in the custody of the concerned officials of the High Court. The photocopies of the said letters were on the file. This Court directed that the photocopies to be sent to FSL for examination by the handwriting expert in comparison with the admitted handwriting found in the Vakalath and specimen taken from the accused. (5) One Syed Asgar Imam, Scientific Officer of FSL Bangalore is present and sub-mined a report. The contents of the report disclose that the printed material on the letterheads in question do not tally with the specimen letterheads taken from the accused. The letters contain typed matter with the signature showing the name of the accused. The report states that questioned signatures do not tally with the admitted signatures and specimen signatures of the accused. It may be that the prosecution has proved that the defamatory letters have been addressed to the above Judicial Officers. The letters contain typed matter with the signature showing the name of the accused. The report states that questioned signatures do not tally with the admitted signatures and specimen signatures of the accused. It may be that the prosecution has proved that the defamatory letters have been addressed to the above Judicial Officers. However, the report of the handwriting expert does not incriminate the accused to show that the signature on the letters is of the accused. So also the style of the printed matter on the letterhead do not tally with the style of the printed matter in the specimen letterhead. In view of the report and opinion of the expert we find that the charge against the accused is not proved. The accused is acquitted.