A letter from an attorney to a judge protesting against the judge's remarks made in open court and attempting to explain the attorney's conduct does not constitute contempt of court if it is not an attempt to influence the judge's decision or to divert the due course of justice, and it does not scandalize the court.

( 1 ) TWO Rules were issued - one on July 26, 1951 and the other on July 27, 1951-by Mitter J. calling upon Sree Sudir Chandra Ray Chaudhuri, an Attorney of this Court, to show cause (1) why he should not be convicted and- punished for contempt of Court and (2) why disciplinary action should not be taken against him under the provisions of the Letters Patent of this Court. The Rule relating to contempt of Court was made returnable before the learned Judge, but the Rule relating to disciplinary action was made returnable before a Bench of three Judges as required by the Rules of this Court. As the two Rules were concerned with the same matter application was made to have the Rule relating to contempt of Court heard by the Bench of three Judges which would have to be constituted to hear the Rule relating to disciplinary action. The course suggested was obviously a convenient and proper one and an order was made transferring the contempt matter and directing the same to be heard by the Bench to be constituted for hearing the disciplinary matter.

( 2 ) A case - 'narayan PROSAD SEAL v. MRS. MILLICENT DE SILVA', - was pending on the Original Side of this Court and was in the list of Mitter J. An application had been made in this suit for an injunction restraining the defendant from pursuing certain conduct. The attorney concerned, namely, Sri Sudhir Chandra Ray Chaudhuri, was the attorney for the defendant, Mrs. De Silva, and in these interlocutory proceedings an affidavit had been sworn by Mrs. De Silva. When the application for the injunction came before Mitter J. reference was made to this affidavit in opposition filed by Mrs. De ASilva. Annexed to the affidavit were 32 pages of exhibits, each page containing a copy of a rent receipt and all these rent receipts were in similar terms. During these interlocutory proceedings Mitter J. pointed out that it was wholly unnecessary to exhibit a copy of each of these rent receipts to the affidavit in opposition. He severely criticised and deprecated such conduct and he expressed the view that the affidavit appeared to have been drawn up in that form mainly for the purposes of costs.

( 3 ) MRS. De Silva was represented by Counsel and representative of Sree Sudhir Chandra Ray Chaudhuri was in Court instructing Counsel. According to the learned Judge, Counsel1 was wholly unable to suggest that these 32 pages of exhibits were in any way necessary, as indeed they were not. No explanation of any kind for this somewhat extraordinary affidavit was made and nothing was suggested which tended to exonerate the attorney concerned from the charge suggested against him by the learned Judge.

( 4 ) EVENTUALLY the defendant, Mrs. De Silva gave certain undertakings and the application was disposed of on those terms. The learned Judge, however, did not carry out the intention which he had expressed during the proceedings, namely, to deprive the attorney of his costs of preparing the affidavit as against his client. The order eventually passed was that the costs would be costs in the cause.

( 5 ) ON July 25, 1951, that is a week after the interlocutory matter had been disposed of, a letter was received by Mitter J. purporting to have been signed by the attorney in question, namely, Sree Sudhir Chandra Ray Chaudhuri. It is quite clear from an affidavit Which has been filed that this letter bears the signature of Sree Sudhir Chandra Ray Chaudhuri and before us it was admitted on his behalf that the letter had been sent by him. It is this letter which has given rise to these proceedings. The contents of this letter will have to be discussed in considerable detail in this judgment so it will be convenient at the outset to set out the letter in extenso. It is in these words: 10 Old Post Office St. Calcutta, July 25, 1951. "dear Judge, i expect you will be surprised to get this letter from me but I thought it my duty to point out certain facts to you as I feel that you had been unjustly harsh i