S.K.Kapur, J. - (1.) Upon a report received from the Additional District Magistrate that Shri R. K. Dalmia has committed contempt of Court, a notice was issued to him on 15th October, 1968. The circumstances that led to the report may now be set out.
(2.) Shri Omesh Saigal, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, New Delhi, made a rept on 27th July, 1968, to the Deputy Commissioner that he had a case (State v. Kewalramani and twelve others) fixed in his Court for 27th July, 1968; that the case was taken up immediately after lunch when the accused were ordered to be released on bail; that according to the Sessions Court the file was sent to Shri N. C. Jain, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, New Delhi, for consideration of the surety bonds for release of the accused persons; that by about 5 -20 P.M. the surety bonds of 12 accused persons had been accepted but no surety was present for the 13th accused; that at about 5.35 P.M. when "Mr. Badri Nath, Mr. Ramesh Chander, Magistrate 1st Class and myself were sitting in the retiring room having a cup of tea, Mr. N. C. Jain came from his Court and lighted a cigarette. Shortly after he was followed by twenty/thirty people who pressed him for the acceptance of the bail-bond of one of the accused in the afore-mentioned case. Mr. Jain told them that he had already accepted the bail-bonds of twelve accused and as no surety was present at the time when he was holding the Court, now he will not accept the surety in the retiring room after Court hours. Shortly afterwards at about 5 -45 P.M. a thin gentleman who introduced himself as R. K. Dalmia entered the room. At this all the other persons who were pressing Mr. Jain for the acceptance of the bail, left. He was politely given a seat. He enquired from us about our identities at which we introduced ourselves. Mr. Dalmia then requested Mr. Jain to accept the surety but Mr. Jain reiterated his position that the Court had already risen for the day. Mr. Dalmia said that many Magistrates considered and accepted the sureties at their residences but Mr. Jain informed him that he was not going to do it after he had risen for the day"; that thereafter Shri Dalmia addressed Shri Jain in Hindi, which, as translated, reads- "Dalmia talks only once. Ram Krishan Dalmia has come. Even Pandit Ji used to do the work asked by me. In case I ask Indra or Chavan, they also cannot turn down my request"; that thereafter he suddenly turned towards Shri Omesh Saigal and told him that in the case had summoned his men as accused and said the following in Hindi, which, as translated, reads- "I shall teach you a lesson for your childishness. Omesh Saigal, you have taken wrong proceedings against our men by acting in childish manner. I have got initiated a secret inquiry against you. You will come to know after a few days. Withdraw your orders, otherwise I shall see you and teach you a lesson. I can be your well-wisher if you act as asked by us. You are not understanding us. You have not understood me. I have crores of rupees. By summoning my men, you have challenged a formidable foe. I shall see you"; and that by the afore-mentioned utterances Shri Dalmia had initimidated and insulted Shri Omesh Saigal for the acts done by the latter in the discharge of his judicial duties, had committed contempt of his Court and had also impliedly threatened Mr. Jain that it will be in Mr. Jain's interest to accept the surety.
(3.) Shri R. K. Dalmia in his reply affidavit had admitted having entered the room where the said three learned Magistrates were sitting though, according to him, the said Magistrates were sitting in the common room and not in the retiring room of Shri Omesh Saigal. He has, however, denied having used the words attributed to him by Shri Omesh Saigal. His version of the happening on the 27th July, 1968, may be set out in his own words- "At about 5.35 P.M. Shri Kewalramani telephoned and narrated to me as to how he and other employees of the Management were put to unnecessary and avoidable harassment and were sent to police lock-up etc. He also informed me that the bail-bond of one of the 13 employees had not been accepted. He requested me to go to the Court and make a request for the bail of the remaining one person to Shri N. C. Jain. I in sympathy with them went to the Court though owing to my had health I have not been going out anywhere and I did not even go to the Keventer's Factory during the long strike which entailed a heavy loss. When I reached the Court I learnt that Sh. N. C. Jain was sitting in the retiring room and his staff was also sitting in the Court. I along with Shri Kewalramani, the Adviser, and Sh. N. N. Kaul, the Commercial Manager of Edward Keventer(s) Pvt. Ltd. went to see Mr. Jain. I entered the retiring room and the said two gentlemen stayed within hearing distance at the door. Mr. Jain was pointed out to me by Mr. Kewalramani. I first introduced myself to Mr. Jain who offered me a seat. At that time two or three persons including one lady were also sitting there. I did not know any of them. I first wanted to know the good names of the persons present there. One gentleman sitting next to Mr. Jain who was dressed with half sleeved and unbuttoned shirt replied that he was Mr. Omesh Saigal. Others did not reply. I thanked Mr. Jain for having accepted bail-bonds of 12 persons and requested him that the next day being Sunday, if he accepted also the bail of the remaining one person who was a very poor employee, he would be saved from imprisonment for 2 days. While making this request I also said that the Magistrates had been granting bails in their chambers and retiring rooms and even at their residences during holidays. Even on a previous occasion, on 20-5-68 bails of seven persons in the case under sections 107/150 Cr. P. C. had been accepted by Shri Kapoor, Magistrate 1st Class, in this very retiring room. I further added that even Shrimati Indira Gandhi and Shri Chavan sometimes accept applications and grant requests at their residences in the interest of justice, and that he (Mr. Jain) had full discretion to accept the bail-bonds any where he liked. I also submitted to him that if he had any doubt regarding the soundness of the surety brought before him for the remaining person, the employer Company, i.e. Edward Keventer(S) Pvt. Ltd., which had assets worth crores of rupees, could stand surety. The learned Magistrate however, did not accept my request." Shri Dalmia also denied having addressed Shri Saigal in the language attributed to him. He, in his counter-affidavit, says- ;