K. Venkataswami, J. - (1.) This appeal under Section 19(1) (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the Act) is preferred against the judgment dated 15-7-89 of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court punishing the appellant after finding him guilty of contempt of Court with simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
(2.) The appellant contested the biennial elections to Rajya Sabha held in the year 1984. In that connection, he filed an Election Petition No. 1/84 on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. That Election Petition was tried by Mr. Justice Upendralal Waghray. During the hearing of the said Election Petition, the appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application being S.R. No. 16572/85 requesting the Honble Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court to withdraw the said Election Petition from the Court of Mr. Justice Upendralal Waghray and transfer the same to some other learned Judge. In the said Miscellaneous Application for transfer, the appellant made the following allegations: "It is alleged that his lordship the Honble Mr. Justice Upendralal Waghray is under the evil influence of Sri N. T. Rama Rao, Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, because of his relative. Mr. Shravan Kumar, I.A.S., Chief Secretary to the Chief Minister Sri N. T. Rama Rao, since the said Mr. Shravan Kumar is behind the fraud in connection with the resignation of the 1st respondent, viz., Mr. P. Radhakrishna from the membership of the A. P. Public Service Commission. . . . . . In these circumstances, I submit that his lordship the Honble Mr. Justice Upendralal Waghray cannot do justice to me in the above election petition and request that the Honble Chief Justice, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, at Hyderabad may be pleased to withdraw the election petition from the file of the Honble Mr. Justice Upendralal Waghray and make it over to some other Judge. . . . . . ." .
(3.) On perusing these allegations, the learned Judge felt that the allegations made against him were not only baseless but also made recklessly with a view to scandalise the Court. Accordingly, the learned Judge passed an order on 16-4-85 holding that the allegation made in the Transfer Application amounts to interference with, and obstruction to administration of justice, amounting to criminal contempt as defined in Section 2(c) of the Act, Hence, the learned Judge proposed initiation of contempt proceedings against the appellant and issued notice to the appellant to put forward his defence and adjourned the matter to 25-4-85. On the adjourned date, the learned Judge directed the papers to be placed before the Honble Chief Justice for placing the matter before any other learned Judge. In the first instance, the matter came up before Mr. Justice P. A. Choudhary, who passed an order directing the matter to be placed for hearing before a Division Bench, accepting the contention of the appellant that the matter being a criminal contempt was required to be dealt with by a Division Bench. The matter was then heard by a Division Bench consisting of Mr. Justice Seetharam Reddy and Mr. Justice M. N. Rao. It appears that the appellant was not regular in appearing before the Division Bench and the Division Bench, therefore, directed to issue a bailable warrant on 9-6-87 to secure the presence of the appellant. Thereafter, the case was listed before a Bench consisting of Mr. Justice Jeevan Reddy and Mr. Justice Neeladri Rao. Even before this Bench the appellant did not appear at the time of hearing and the Court was compelled to issue a non-bailable warrant to secure his presence. In the meanwhile, it is seen from the records that the appellant moved this Court in Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 147/87 for transfer of the contempt case. This Court requested the Chief Justice of the High Court to fix a Division Bench for hearing the case to ensure an early disposal of the matter. He also filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 2988-90 of 1988 in T. P. (Crl.) No. 147/87 for punishing respondents 1 and 3 therein for not complying with the Order in T.P. (Crl.) No. 147/87. This Court again directed the High Court to dispose of the contempt petition within six weeks from 22-7-88. As noticed earlier, the appellant without disclosing the laches on his part in not appearing before the Court resulting in issue of bailable and non-bailable warrants to secure his presence, seems to have moved this Court for early disposal of the contempt petition. The case was ultimately heard on 3rd and 4th July, 1989 by the Division Bench.;