RAMAKRISHNA IYER Vs. MOHAMMED KUNJU
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS is a motion in contempt moved by Sri. S. Ramakrishna Iyer, Advocate, Punalur against one Mytheen Kunju Mohammed Kunju, m. M. K. Bunglow, Punalur for making a scandalous imputation against the munsiff of Punalur by stating in a transfer petition that the counsel appearing for the opposite side (Shri. Ramakrishna Iyer himself) is a near relative of the Munsiff. The respondent Mytheen Kunju Muhammed Kunju is the transferee of item No. 2 of the decree schedule in O. S. 567/1116 on the file of the Munsiff court of Kottarakara now pending execution in the Munsiff's Court of Punalur. On 24 51965 an application was moved by him in the District Court of Quilon praying for transfer of the said suit from the file of the Munsiff of Punalur. In Para. 8 of the affidavit accompanying the petition the following statement was made by him:
(2.) THE above allegation, viz. , that the Munsiff is related to the advocate appearing for the other side was denied by the advocate in as affidavit filed by him. That has been emphatically denied by the Munsiff also. THE advocate concerned as stated already is Sri. S. Ramakrishna Iyer practising at Punalur. He has brought to the notice of this court in his affidavit that the allegation is false and was intended to malign the Munsiff and bring him into discredit in the eyes of the public. On notice being issued to the party a counter-affidavit was filed by him stating that the information was supplied to him by one sulaiman of Mukaluvila Puthen Veedu, Punalur, and it later on came to his notice that the allegation was false. He, therefore, expressed regret for what has happened and tendered an unconditional apology.
The matter was examined by us in all its aspects and we are satisfied that the allegation made was in effect a scandalous attack on the integrity and impartiality of the Munsiff and it was made recklessly, without caring in the least, to ascertain the truth or otherwise of the allegation. Both the contemner and the person who is said to have supplied the information were summoned before us and questioned. The informer stated that it was from lobby talks that he collected the information that the Munsiff and sri. Ramakrishna Iyer were related. It is that information that instilled fear in the mind of the contemner that he would not get justice from the said court. Such irresponsible statements made in wanton disregard of the respect for the court, cannot be tolerated and have to be put down with a firm hand. Reckless attacks on the impartiality of the presiding officer of the court would not only imperil the dignity of the court, but would also endanger the proper administration of justice and impair the confidence of the public in the administration of justice. We are compelled, therefore, to take a serious view of the matter and are inclined to think that the offence is not such as to be lightly wiped out by a mere expression of regret. Tendering apology is to be treated only as an empty formality in such cases, as was pointed out by this court in Advocate General of Kerala v. Thevar Tharakan (1960 KLT. 338 ). We, therefore, hold that the person concerned, viz. , Mytheen Kunju Mohammed kunju of M. M. K. Bunglow, Punalur is guilty of contempt of court and he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/-; in default of payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for seven days. Time for payment of fine one week from this date.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.