- (1.) These appeals have been filed against the imugned judgment and order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dated 5th May, 1998 holding the appellant guilty of contempt of Court for having made contemptuous and reckless averments scandalizing the Court in two Contempt Petitions which he had filed in the High Court and sentencing him to six months' imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The proceedings in the said two Contempt Petitions No. 333 of 1997 and CPAN No. 902 of 1998 were also disposed of in terms of the impugned judgment and order. This Court granted to the appellant an order of stay of sentence of imprisonment only. Before release, the appellant had already undergone an imprisonment for 36 days.
(2.) CC No. 333 of 1997 and CPAN No. 902 of 1998 were filed by the appellant before the High Court for initiating contempt of Court proceedings against the respondents who at that point of time were the sitting judges of the High Court. CC No. 333/97 was filed on 4th December, 1997 against the two judges who were members of the Division Bench which made an order dated 16th September, 1997 directing issue of suo motu contempt notice to the appellant noticing in their order that the newspaper reports based on the statement of the appellant were prima facie contemptuous. By the said order the appellant was also directed to file a supplementary affidavit giving details of his educational qualifications in justification of his claim of being a law researcher, to furnish details of the contempt application which he has allegedly made and which was pending before the High Court and reasons and justification for the statements made in the newspaper with the materials on which he may claim to have relied. Prima facie, the Court found that the newspaper reports tend to interfere with the administration of justice. In terms of the orders dated 13th August and 16th September, 1997, suo motu contempt notice dated 26th September, 1997 was issued to the appellant.
(3.) The second contempt petition (CPAN No. 902/98) was filed by the appellant on 24th April, 1998 against two other Hon'ble Judges who were members of another Division Bench which passed an order dated 12th January, 1998 dismissing an application which the appellant had filed under Section 340, Cr.P.C. In the judgment dated 12th January, 1998, the Division Bench made observations to the following effect :- "Pretending to be a researcher on law and judiciary and claiming he has successfully researched several judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Court in regard to interpretation of law and power exercised by the Courts, the petitioner Deepak Kumar Prahladka has only exhibited ignorance of law by filing the instant petition.";