STATE OF HYDERABAD Vs. C NATARAJAN
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
STATE OF HYDERABAD
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) C. Natarajan, an Advocate, enrolled in this High Court, had sent a communication, dated 2-12-1953, to Hon'ble the Chief Justice entitled "dictators" forwarding copies of this communication for favour of kind information and necessary action to: (1) Hon'ble Shri Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India, (2) Hon'ble Shri Kailashnath Katju, Home Minister, Government of India, (3) Hon'ble Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan, Rajpramukh, Hyderabad state, and (4) Shri K. S. Naik, Chairman of the Anti-corruption Committee, Hyderabad-Deccan. This communication being a prima facie contempt, notice was ordered to be issued to him to show cause why proceedings should not be taken against him under Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, as also otherwise.
(2.) IN reply to this notice, Natarajan filed a petition tendering an unqualified apology for writing such a letter This petition which is signed by him and presented through his Counsel is in the following terms: In answer to the notice No. dated. . . . '53, Your applicant most humbly and respectfully submits: 1. That, at the time your applicant wrote the letter complained against, your applicant did not realise that the said letter would amount to contempt of Court and your applicant had taken no legal advice in the matter. 2. That, at the time your applicant wrote the said letter, your applicant had no desire to bring any honourable Court down in public esteem. 3. That, your applicant has the highest regard and greatest esteem for the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Hon'ble High Court and offers His Lordship through this Hon'ble Court his sincere apology for any inconvenience caused by the said unfortunate letter. 4. That, at the time your applicant wrote the said letter, he never intended nor does he intend to cast any the slightest doubt or aspersion against the honest and fair manner in which His Lordship the Chief Justice is pleased to impart justice. 5. That your applicant craves permission to tender his unqualified apologies for writing the said letter.
(3.) THE Counsel for Natarajan submitted that inasmuch as his client had tendered an unqualified apology he should be discharged and took time to cite authorities in support of his contention. On the adjourned hearing of the case, he cited no decisions but contented himself merely by leaving it to the Court to determine the matter.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.