Back
1958 Supreme(Pat) 111
PATNA HIGH COURT
K.Sahai and K.Dayal JJ.
State Of Bihar
Versus
Tribhuvan Nath Verma
Original Criminal Miscellaneous No. 9 of 1957 ;
Decided On : JULY 30, 1958
Contemptuous statements against the judicial integrity of a Judge and scandalising the dignity of a Court constitute contempt of Court.
Headnote:
CONTEMPT OF COURT - [KEYWORD] - Contempt of Court - Subordinate Court - Jurisdiction - Criticism of Judge - Libel - Scandalising the Court - Contempt of High Court - Punishment.
Fact of the Case:
The opposite party, Tribhuvan Nath Verma, a pleader practising at Sitamarhi, was accused of making contemptuous statements against the judicial integrity of Mr. S.K. Basu, Munsif 1st Court, Sitamarhi, and of scandalising the dignity of the Patna High Court and some of its Judges in a letter addressed to the Chief Justice of India.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the opposite party was guilty of contempt of the Court of Mr. S.K. Basu, Munsif 1st Court, Sitamarhi, and of the Patna High Court and some of its Judges. The Court found that the impugned passages in the opposite party's petitions and letter amounted to contempt of Court and not merely libel against the Judges in their personal capacities.
Issues: 1. Whether the opposite party's statements constituted contempt of the Court of Mr. S.K. Basu, Munsif 1st Court, Sitamarhi, and of the Patna High Court and some of its Judges? 2. Whether the notices issued to the opposite party in both cases were defective and inadequate? 3. What punishment should be awarded to the opposite party?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the opposite party's statements constituted contempt of Court and not merely libel against the Judges in their personal capacities. The Court found that the impugned passages in the opposite party's petitions and letter were calculated to interfere with the due course of justice and to lower the dignity of the Courts. 2. The Court held that the notices issued to the opposite party were not defective or inadequate. The Court found that the notices gave sufficient indication to the opposite party of the case which he had to meet. 3. The Court sentenced the opposite party to simple imprisonment for six months for contempt of the Court of Mr. S.K. Basu, Munsif 1st Court, Sitamarhi. For the contempt of the Patna High Court and some of its Judges, the Court sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 200.00 or, in default of payment of the fine, to suffer further simple imprisonment for six weeks.
Final Decision: The Court found the opposite party guilty of contempt of Court and sentenced him to imprisonment and a fine.
K.Sahai, J.
1. The opposite party, Tribhuvan Nath Verma is a pleader, and he w;is practising at Sitamarhi under the judgeship of Muzaffarpur. The proceeding in Original Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 9 of 1957 was started by an order of this Court, dated 4-0-1957, on the basis of a letter of the District Judge of Muzaffarpur, forwarding a report dated 18-7-1956, of Mr. S.K. Basu, Munsif, 1st Court, Sitamarhi. Four documents marked annexures A, B, C and D were attached to the report. This Court order directed notice to issue to the opposite party "to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of Court for making contemptuous statements touching upon the judicial integrity of Mr. S.K. Basu. Munsif 1st Court, Sitamarhi."
2. The opposite party addressed a letter dated 31-3-1958, to the Chief Justice of India with a copy to the Chief Justice of this Court. The proceeding in Original Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 7 of 1958 was started by an order of this Court dated 15-4-1958, whereby a notice was directed to issue to the opposite party "to show cause why he should not be convicted for the contempt of Court for scandalising the dignity of this Court in general and some of its Judges in particular," in the letter lust referred to.
3. Both the cases have been heard together with the consent of the parties and for the sake of convenience.
4. It is necessary to mention some facts in order to appreciate the points which arise for consideration. The opposite party was appointed guardian ad litem for the minor defendants in Title Suit No. 48 of 1954 of the Munsif 1st Court as Sitamarhi. On 10-12-1954, he made a prayer before Mr. N.K. Jha, the then presiding officer of the Court, for permission to go to the residence of the minor defendants; but the Munsif, for reasons given by him in his order, rejected the prayer.
On 25-1-1955, the opposite party filed a bill for the alleged expenses incurred by him in going to the residence of the minor defendants, and made a prayer for payment of the bill. Mr. S.K. Basu had succeeded Mr. N.K. Jha, and was the presiding officer of the Court on that date. As Mr. Basu found that the opposite partys prayer for permission to go to the locality had been refused by his predecessor-in-office, he rejected the opposite partys prayer for payment of his bill.
On the 26th January, the opposite party addressed a letter to the Chief Justice of this Court, forwarding a copy to the District Judge of Muzaffarpur. A copy of this letter is annexure A. One of the allegations made by the opposite party in this document is that he filed an additional written statement and a petition for time on behalf of the minor defendants in Title Suit No. 48 of 1954 on 25-1-1955; but the suit was decreed ex parte against all the defendants which led him to suspect that either the bench-clerk had not attached the papers to the file of the suit or "if it has been so attached, the Court has neglected to go through the papers in the file," The District Judge sent a copy of the letter to Mr. Basu, who in reply, categorically denied the allegations made by the opposite party against him.
5. The opposite party sent a letter dated 14-9-1955, to the District Judge. A copy of this letter is annexure B. He made some suggestions in it as to the issue of commissions by the Munsifs at Sitamari to the pleaders and also regarding other matters. In Small Cause Court Suit No. 108 of 1955, the opposite party was one of the pleaders whom the plaintiff had appointed on his behalf. On the 28th June, the plaintiff filed a petition before Mr. Basu, making certain allegations against the conduct of the opposite party and praying for permission to cancel the power held by him. Mr. Basu called for a report from the pleader on the allegations made in this petition, and fixed the 29th June, for hearing as the suit was also to be finally heard on that date. The suit was taken up for hearing in the early hours on the 29th June.
The opposite party
