J.N. Takru, J. - (1.) ON 15 -7 -1966, while disposing of the revision application of Radhey Lal, the present contemner, (Cr. Revision No. 1913 of 1964) (since reported in 1967 AWR 356), G. Kumar, J. ordered that the complaint filed against him by the Nyaya Panchayat Sahani Kalan be brought on record and a notice issued to him to show cause why he should not be punished for committing contempt of that court. The aforesaid notice was issued under the following circumstances: Radhey Lal filed a suit in the Nyaya Panchayat Sahani Kalan against one Akbar Khan in which the latter appointed his brother Waheed as his Pairokar. On 25 -9 -1963 the Nyaya Panchayat permitted this Waheed to do pairvi for his brother. This infuriated Radhey Lal to such an extent that he not only Questioned the Nyaya Panchayat's authority to give that permission but also abused it and its panches. Thereupon the latter presented a complaint Under Section 228 IPC before the SDM Ghaziabad and on its basis Radhey Lal was summoned. Radhey Lal appeared and objected to the Magistrate's jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The Magistrate rejected the objection. Radhey Lal then went up in revision to the learned Sessions Judge but with no better luck. He then preferred a revision application to this Court which was heard by G. Kumar, J. and while allowing it he held that as Radhey Lal appeared to have committed gross contempt of the Nyaya Panchayat by insulting and abusing its panches, this Court as a court of record could take cognizance of it and he, therefore, directed the issue of the notice aforementioned. Subsequently on 31 -10 -1966 he ordered the summoning of Rameshwar Singh Sarpanch and Sindhi Ram Panch of the said Nyaya Panchayat for 28 -11 -1966 for the recording of their evidence. Both the witnesses appeared on the due date and their evidence was recorded by me on 29 -11 -1966. Both of them stated -as indeed they had stated in their complaint to the SDM Ghaziabad also, that when the Nyaya Panchayat gave permission to Waheed to do Pairvi for his brother, Radhey Lal in a loud tone questioned the Nyaya Panchayat's authority to give the said permission and when asked not to make noise as it was a court, he retorted: "Aisi Adalat Maine moot par rakhhi hai" and when he was again told that it was a court and he should not behave in that fashion he replied: Aisi Adalat bhar men jaye. Main Aisi Adalat ko kaya samajhta hoon. Yah sab gunde, badmash hain. Both these witnesses were cross examined by Sri S.N. Mulla, learned Counsel for Radhey Lal, but he completely failed to elicit anything from them which would go to show that they were not witnesses of truth. Indeed the position in this regard was so unassailable that Sri Mulla in his arguments did not challenge their testimony and the only two contentions urged by him were (1) that as the present type of contempt was specifically provided for in Section 228 IPC, Section 3(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act operated as a bar to this Court's taking cognizance of it and (2) that as this Court had already ruled in Radhey Lal 's revision application that a complaint Under Section 228 IPC did not lie, because of the bar of Section 94 -A of the UP Nyaya Panchayat Act, this Court could not impose a sentence heavier than that provided under that section. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties I am, however, satisfied that neither of these contentions has any substance. I shall therefore proceed to deal with them at seriatim.
(2.) NOW so far as the first contention is concerned the Supreme Court in Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy -Appellant v. State of Madras -Respondent : AIR 1952 SC 149 while explaining the scope and effect of Section 3(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, in relation to Section 228 IPC observed as follows: Sub -section (3) of Section 2 excludes the jurisdiction of High Court only in cases where the acts alleged to constitute contempt of a subordinate Court are punishable as contempt under specific pro visions of the Indian Penal Code but not where these acts merely amount to offences of other description for which punishment has been provided for in the Indian Penal Code. This is clear from the language of the sub -section which uses the words "where such contempt is an offence" and does not say "where the act alleged to constitute such contempt is an offence". There are offences which are punishable as contempt under the Indian Penal Code and as subordinate courts can be sufficiently vindicate their dignity under the provisions of criminal law in such cases the legislature deemed it proper to exclude them from the jurisdiction of the High Court Under Section 2(3), Contempt of Courts Act; but it would not be correct to say that the High Court's jurisdiction is excluded even in cases where the act complained of, which is alleged to constitute contempt, is otherwise an offence under the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently in State of Madhya Pradesh Appellant v. Revashankar Respondent : AIR 1959 SC 102 the Supreme Court explained its previous decision in the following terms: There are innumerable ways by which attempts could be made to hinder or obstruct the due administration of justice in courts and one type of such interference is found in cases where there is an act which amounts to "scandalising the court itself". This scandalising might manifest itself in various ways but in substance it is an attack on individual Judges or the court as a whole with or without reference to particular case, causing un -warranted and defamatory aspersions upon the character and ability of the Judges. Such conduct is punished as contempt for the reason that it tends to create distrust in the popular mind and impair the confidence of the people in the courts which are of prime importance to the litigants in the protection of their rights and liberties. If in its true nature and effect, the act complained of is really "scandalising the court" rather than a mere insult, then it is clear that on the ratio of the decision in : AIR 1952 SC 149 the jurisdiction of the High Court is not ousted by reason of the provision in Section 3(2) of the Act. Hence on the established view of the law we have to see whether the act of Radhey Lal in making the aforesaid two statements amounts to a mere insult, or it goes further and is really "scandalising the Court" i.e. is an act which tends to create distrust in the popular mind and thus impair the confidence of the people in the Nyaya Panchayat. Now so far as the statements in question are concerned there can be little doubt that they are of a very highly abusive and vituperative nature, but, as held in the decisions cited above, unless they have the effect of scandalizing the court, in the sense of creating distrust in the popular mind and impairing the confidence of the people in the Nyaya Panchayats they would remain mere insults and not amount to contempt of court and the jurisdiction of the High Court to take cognizance of such a contempt would be ousted by Section 3(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act. After giving the matter my anxious consideration, I am firmly of the opinion that the abusive statements made by Radhey Lal are, in the ultimate analysis, much more than a mere insult to the Panches or the Nyaya Panchayat and indeed have the effect of creating disrespect and distrust in the popular mind against the Nyaya Panchayat and impairing its confidence in the Nyaya Panchayat -a statement of affairs which cannot but tend to interfere with the due administration of justice by it. It seems to me inconceivable that any one hearing the aforesaid abusive statements made by Radhey Lal would not get the impression that the panches were Goondas and the Nyaya Panchayat over which they presided was no better than what Radhey Lal compared it to; and once that impression is formed it appears equally inconceivable to me that he (i.e. the person hearing those abusive statements) would not also come to entertain a feeling of disrespect for the Nyaya Panchayat and distrust in the manner in which it performed its judicial duties.
(3.) SRI S.N. Mulla then contended that as an essential ingredient of the offence of contempt of courts was the attributing of an improper motive to the court in the discharge of its judicial functions and as such a motive was to be found in the statements made by Radhey Lal, he could not be held guilty of contempt. I do not agree. As held in State of M.P. (B) scandalizing of a court might manifest itself in various ways, of which the attributing of an improper motive is one of the most important but by no means the only way. Another way in which the scandalizing of a court can take place is where a person acts in malice and attempts to impair the administration of justice by saying or doing something which by lowering the dignity and prestige of the court results in the impairing of the public confidence in its impartiality' or ability to protect the rights and liberties of the litigants whose cases are pending before it. Thus for the reasons stated above I am satisfied that Radhey Lal is guilty of committing contempt of the Nyaya Panchayat Sahani Kalan and is liable to be punished for the same.;