STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. RATAN SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE proceedings have been instituted against Sri Ratan Shukla, a Vakil practising in the district Judgeship of Kanpur, on a report made by the District Judge of Kanpur. The District judge made the report on being moved by Sri S. M. Ifrahim, Additional District Magistrate o kanpur, in whose court the alleged contempt was committed by the opposite party.

(2.) CERTAIN appeals were instituted against the assessment of tax by the Municipal Board of kanpur in the Court of the District Magistrate. Under Section 160, Municipalities Act the appeals could be filed in the court of the District Magistrate or of any other officer as may be empowered by the State Government. An Additional District Magistrate has the power to perform all the functions of a District Magistrate so the Additional District Magistrate could entertain the appeals and dispose of them if they were filed in his court. The District Magistrate transferred the appeals to his court. The Additional District Magistrate took up the appeals for disposal on 6-2-1954. The Municipal Board engaged the opposite party as its counsel to defend the appeals. The opposite party reached the court at 2 P. M. and started looking into the brief. The Additional District Magistrate reached the court sometime after 3 p. M. and took up the appeals one after another. Five appeals were disposed of after the opposite party had been heard and nothing untoward happened. Then an application for review of an order passed on a previous day on another Tax Appeal was taken up for hearing. The appellant was represented by Sri Virendra Sarup and the Municipal board was represented by the opposite party. After Sri Virendra Sarup completed his argument the opposite party started his reply. The Additional District Magistrate felt that the opposite party's arguments were illegical and incongruous and were delivered in a manner somewhat unusual. He also noticed that lawyers, litigants and their supporters standing near the opposite party put their hands to their noses indicating that bad smell was coming out of the opposite party's mouth. The Additional District magistrate became convinced that the opposite party was under intoxication and asked him if he was. The opposite party denied that he was drunk, but the persons standing close to him contradicted him by saying that he was smelling of liquor. Thereupon the Additional District Magistrate ordered him either to withdraw from the court or to agree to medical examination if he maintained that he was sober. The opposite party hesitated for a moment and then left the court room. After the departure of the opposite party Sri R. N. Tikku, who is a lawyer, and some other persons handed over a writing to the Additional District Magistrate saying that the opposite party was drunk.

(3.) SRI Virendra Sarup is the representative at Kanpur of the Pioneer and also member of the journalists' Association. On 7-2-1954 the Pioneer published news about the above-mentioned incident The opposite party read it and on 8-2-1954 of his own accord went to the house of the additional District Magistrate. There he gave to the Additional District Magistrate a writing admitting that he was intoxicated when he appeared in his court on 6-2-1054, and offering an unqualified and unconditional apology for his misconduct.