D. A. Desai, J. - (1.) An Advocate, the appellant in this appeal under S. 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, by a Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court for committing criminal contempt by scandalising or tending to scandalise, or lowering or tending to lower the authority of the Court of Additional District Magistrate (J), Umaria, then presided over by Shri A. N. Thakur, by publishing a pamphlet on 1st January 1974 commenting upon a judgment rendered by Shri Thakur in a criminal case of which he had taken cognizance on a challan filed by the police upon a report made by one Lal Chand against Betai Lal and his servant Abdul Majid. The High Court took cognizance of the criminal contempt alleged to have been committed by the appellant upon a reference made to it by the Presiding Officer of the Court of Additional District Magistrate (J) under Section 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
(2.) A resume of the events leading to the reference may be briefly noticed. One Lalchand, a tenant, reported at the police station that his landlord Betai Lal and landlord"s servant Abdul Majid committed criminal trespass into the premises in his occupation and removed from sheets which he had placed in the terrace to arrest leaking of rain water in the premises and that as the water leaked through the terrace the goods stored in the premises were damaged and accordingly Betai Lal and Abdul Majid committed offences under Sections 451 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code. After completing investigation a charge sheet was submitted in the Court of Addl. District Magistrate (J). The accused were represented by the present appellant who is a senior practising advocate in Umaria, District Sahdol (M.P.). The learned Magistrate upon appreciation of evidence concluded that both the charges were brought home to the accused and passed sentence considered appropriate by him. The conviction and sentence were questioned in an appeal preferred by the accused in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Umaria, who by his judgment and order dated 21st December 1973 allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence. Soon thereafter, the offending pamphlet was published by the appellant. Shri Thakur having come to know of the publication made a reference to the High Court for initiating action for contempt of court against the appellant. That is how the matter came before the High Court.
(3.) In the reference made by the Court of Additional District Magistrate (J.), certain passages were extracted from the pamphlet as indicating the attitude of the appellant towards the Presiding Officer and the Court and further stated that "the publication tends to create an apprehension in the minds of the people regarding the integrity, ability or fairness of the judge and it also deters actual and prospective litigants from placing complete reliance upon the court"s administration of justice" and thus scandalised the court and the presiding officer as well as lowered the authority of the court. The original pamphlet is in Hindi. The High Court had before it the translation which but for minor variation as suggested by the appellant, has been accepted by both sides as correctly reproducing what has been stated in Hindi. These passages posed as questions may be reproduced in extenso: "(A) Was Shri Thakur authorised to overlook the arguments of counsel More so, when two citizens were to be sentenced to imprisonment (B) Has not Shri Thakur"s conduct been an open insult to the Advocate concerned as also to the Advocates in general (C) Has not Shri Thakur"s conduct damaged the prestige of the sacred post of the Judge (D) Was this witness (a resident of Jaithari) according to wisdom of Shri Thakur, competent to give information after seven months from 21st June 1971 that on this date at Chandia it was raining, or that damage was caused to particular person (E) When the nation"s entire might, police, army etc., is ready to enforce obedience from every person of the orders of a Judge, is it proper that the Judge himself should in this manner with his wayward bent of mind go on using his wayward pen (G) Why did Shri Thakur, after suddenly twisting his own finding, write in the next sentence that the accused entered in the house of Lalchand and that they entered in such a manner that for an offence under section 451 it became necessary to impose such a severe sentence (H) Did Shri Thakur knowingly took (sic) this turn, because he had resolved to convict the accused in spite of there being no evidence Otherwise there is no understandable reason for this turn." Some more questions are also posed by the appellant in the pamphlet of which the High Court has not taken any note. On analysis of the questions posed with necessary innuendos and insinuations contained therein, the High Court concluded that "the imputation of improper motive to a judicial officer in deciding a case by an Advocate who has lost, is a very serious matter, more so when the Court is concerned with a mofussil place where there are one or two courts and a few lawyers and the litigating public is mostly illiterate or poorly educated" and, therefore, the criticism as contained in the booklet is highly mischievous and it is bound to undermine the confidence of litigant public in the administration of justice. They are likely to feel that justice administered by sub-ordinate judicial officers is not fair and impartial, and, therefore, the appellant is guilty of criminal contempt and if it goes unpunished, it will substantially obstruct the due course of justice.;