Interference with the due course of justice through attempts to bring pressure on a party to proceedings is considered contempt of court and can lead to legal consequences.

( 1 ) THIS is an application for the conviction and punishment of the opposite-par ties for contempt of this Court.

( 2 ) THE opposite-party No. l Bejoy Ranjan Ganguly filed a complaint in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Alipore, against the present petitioner and another charging them with offences under Sections 420 and 406, Penal Code. It is unnecessary to deal in detail with these offences. But what was suggested was that the opposite-party had been induced to take certain land on the representation that the land belonged to certain lessors, whereas in fact it was said that it was khas-mahal land.

( 3 ) THE matter first came before a Sub-Divisional Magistrate who directed a Circle Officer to hold an enquiry. The latter submitted a report and expressed the view that this was not a criminal matter.

( 4 ) THE opposite-party thereafter filed a petition and on that a judicial enquiry was held by a learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate was of opinion that the offence under Section 406 was entirely misconceived and that there was no material upon which any charge of cheating could be sustained. The result was that the complaint was dismissed under Section 203, Criminal P. C.

( 5 ) THE opposite-party No. 1 thereupon filed a revision application in the Court of the District Magistrate who held eventually that there was no ground whatsoever for interference and that the order of discharge was fully justified.

( 6 ) THE opposite-party then moved this Court in revision and a rule was issued calling upon the present petitioner and his co- accused to show cause why the orders made by the trial Court and the Additional District Magistrate should not be set aside.

( 7 ) "while this revisional application was pending the petitioner alleges that the opposite-party wrote a letter to the President of the West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee through the Secretary. It seems that the petitioner was at that time a candidate for election in the General Election and was a candidate nominated by the Congress party. In this letter it is pointed out that there were criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner and that it was very doubtful whether he could escape from criminal liability. The writer then adds : "to save him and also the Congress candidate as Mr. Paul's illfame will affect them, I request you to arrange with Mr. Paul to repay our full amount with costs. "

( 8 ) READING this letter,-which is Exhibit B to the petition, there can, I think, be no doubt whatsoever that the writer intended to bring pressure through the President of the West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee on the petitioner to pay up what it was alleged he had cheated the opposite-party. It is pointed out that the probabilities are that the petitioner will be convicted and that would bring great disgrace on all concerned. Therefore, the President is urged to bring pressure on the petitioner.

( 9 ) THE petitioner was upholding the orders of the Courts below which exonerated him from all criminal liability. If the Congress President had attempted to bring pressure on him and I may say at once that it is not suggested that the Congress President ever acted in that manner -- it might have had serious consequences. The opposite-party certainly wished and expected the Congress President to bring pressure on the petitioner, and had he done so the whole course of events might have been completely changed. Fortunately, it would appear that the Congress President took the right course and reported the matter to the petitioner leaving it to him to take what action he thought proper.

( 10 ) ATTEMPTING in this way to bring pressure upon a party to proceedings, undoubtedly tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice. Here the petitioner may have been so coerced as to admit liability in a case in which he might well be not liable. It appears to me that this letter, Exhibit B, is clearly contempt of Court in that it tended to