Gyanendra Kumar, J. - (1.)THE opposite party, Raghubir Sahai Kaithwal, is an M. L A. from Fatehpur. The admitted facts are that a case under Section 323 I. P. C was instituted against Ram Saran alias Lallan at the Instance of the opposite parties State v. Ram Saran and was pending in the court of Shri Dinesh Mohan Arya, Judicial Magistrate Bindki at Fatehpur The opposite party was the main prosecution witness in the case; but he was disbelieved with the result, that the Magistrate acquitted the accused. In his judgment, the Magistrate passed scathing remarks against the opposite party and awarded a compensation of Rs. 500 to be PAid to Lallan accused. Against the said order the opposite party filed an appeal before the Sessions Judge which is still pending. He also came to this Court for expunction of adverse remarks against him. By its Order dated 14-4-1966 this Court expunged only one word from the remarks of the Magistrate but maintained the rest.
(2.)SOON after the Magistrate had awarded compensation to Lallan aforesaid, the opposite party distributed a printed pamphlet on 28-11-1965 in which, inter alia, he alleged that the Magistrate, Shri Dinesh Mohan Arya, depends upon the mercy of the District Magistrate and acts according to the letter's directions, that he also acts upon the advice of his Reader, Ahalmad and Court-Inspector and that the three officials aforesaid bring to bear their influence in getting certain wrong and unjust orders passed by the said Presiding Officer, which are set aside in appeal by the Sessions Judge and the Commissioner and further that, in order to avoid his judgments being challenged before the appellate courts, the Magistrate ante-dates his judgments; that the opposite party had exposed the nefarious deeds of the District Magistrate and others by distributing pamphlets as also raising questions in the Assembly and by addressing several complaints to the Chief Minister. However, on account of the fact that the Chief Minister did not consider the allegations to be correct, the District Magistrate and others, in order to take revenge through the agency of the 'Yes-man' Judicial Officer, and with a desire to belittle and injure him, entered into a conspiracy. The pamphlet goes oh to say that whatever the Magistrate has done, through the co-operation of his Reader. Ahalmad and Court-Inspector as well as of one or two favourite vakils, has not only exposed the manner of his administration of justice but has also shown how high the family status of the Judicial Magistrate would be who considers notorious gangsters, drunkards and bullies to be greater leaders than the legislators
The Judicial Magistrate accordingly addressed a letter to the Additional District Magistrate, Fatehpur on 3-1-1966, for necessary action in the matter. The Additional District Magistrate, in his turn, referred the matter to the Registrar of this Court on 6-1-1966 whereupon proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act were started against the opposite party by this Court.

(3.)THERE can be no doubt that in the instant case the alleged contempt would fall in the category of scandalising the court and impairing its dignity in the eyes of the people, who are likely to lose confidence in the dispensation of justice by the Judicial Magistrate in question.