Sapru, J. - (1.) Tills contempt matter was referred by us to a Full Bench of five Judges as, in our opinion, there was a conflict between two cases, namely, the Full Bench case of - 'State v. Brahma Prakash' AIR 1950 All 553 (A), and the Bench case of - 'Rex v. B. S. Nayyar' AIR1950 All 549 . Before the proposed Pull Bench could dispose of the case, the Supreme Court gave its decision in - 'Brahma Prakash Sharma v. State of "Uttar Pradesh' AIR1954 SC 10 , 1953 (1 )BLJR600 , 1954 CriLJ238 , [1953 ]4 SCR1169 . In view of the fact that the point referred to the Pull Bench has been considered and decided by the Supreme Court, the learned Chief Justice has returned the reference to this bench with the query whether it is any longer necessary to constitute a Full Bench. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and are clearly of the opinion that it is not necessary to constitute a Full Bench in view of the decision of the Supreme Court.
(2.) We shall now proceed to give the salient facts of this case. Shri Shyam Sunder Lal Jain Sarraf, the opposite-party, was the complainant in a case under Section 500 I. P. C. It was numbered as 20 of 1049 and came to be tried by Sri H. L. Mehra, a magistrate of the first class, Dehra Dun. The learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the complainant had not been aisle to establish the case against the accused and by his order dated the 3rd August 1949 acquitted the accused on the ground that they were protected by Exception 9 to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. The opposite-party took no further action by way of revision so far as this matter was concerned. He, however, wrote a letter to the Prime Minister of India. It is in the form of a petition or representation and is dated the 10th January 1950. In the course of this letter the opposite-party made serious allegations of corruption and partiality against the magistrate.
(3.) The representation sent to the Prime Minister was forwarded by the Prime Minister's Private Secretary to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, for disposal. The Chief Secretary passed on that letter to the Petitions Officer of Government U. P. for necessary enquiry and final disposal. On an enquiry by a letter dated the 12th March 1950 by the Petitions Officer, the opposite-party reiterated the allegations of dishonesty and partiality that he had made against the magistrate. He pointed out that the letter was not intended to interfere with the course of justice but was sent in order that an enquiry might be made into the conduct of the learned magistrate who, he alleged, had been corrupt. The Petitions Officer forwarded the petition as also the letter dated the 26th March 1950 to the District Magistrate of Dehra Dun for necessary action. The District Magistrate of Dehra Dun did not call upon the opposite-party to substantiate his allegations. He, in fact, did not hold any enquiry but took the view that the letter constituted a contempt of court and referred it to the Legal Remembrancer to Government. Thereafter this Court was moved to initiate contempt proceedings and notice was issued by the Vacation Judge on the 6th June 1950 to the opposite-party to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt. The opposite-party has now appeared and filed a counter-affidavit. The question before us is whether he is, in all the circumstances of this case, guilty of contempt.;