Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Mehar Singh, A.N.Grover and P.C.Pandit JJ.
S.Sher Singh S/o S.Hukam Singh
Versus
Raghu Pati Kapur
Criminal Original No. 87 of 1965,
Decided On : APRIL 3, 1967
The High Court held that the production of an anonymous letter in court by an attorney for one of the parties in a civil suit, alleging that a judge of the High Court and the Registrar of the court were putting pressure on the trial judge in the case, was calculated to embarrass the trial judge and influence him in the trial of the suit, and was likely to impede the due course of justice and affect the mind of the trial judge as also to deflect him from pursuit of his duty as a Judicial officer. The court also held that the production of a second anonymous letter in court, alleging that pressure was being put on the trial judge through the High Court, was calculated to impair the administration of justice by creating an impression that the High Court was itself interfering with the due course of justice, and was likely to immediately bring the High Court and the administration of justice into disrepute.
Fact of the Case:
In a civil suit between the respondents society and the deceased petitioner, the attorney for the respondents society produced an anonymous letter in court, alleging that a judge of the High Court and the Registrar of the court were putting pressure on the trial judge in the case. The trial judge refused to hold an inquiry into the allegations, and the attorney for the respondents society filed a contempt petition against the trial judge. The High Court issued a notice to the trial judge to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court. The trial judge filed a reply, and the High Court referred the matter to a larger bench. The larger bench held that the production of the anonymous letter in court was calculated to embarrass the trial judge and influence him in the trial of the suit, and was likely to impede the due course of justice and affect the mind of the trial judge as also to deflect him from pursuit of his duty as a Judicial officer. The court also held that the production of a second anonymous letter in court, alleging that pressure was being put on the trial judge through the High Court, was calculated to impair the administration of justice by creating an impression that the High Court was itself interfering with the due course of justice, and was likely to immediately bring the High Court and the administration of justice into disrepute.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the production of the anonymous letter in court by the attorney for the respondents society was calculated to embarrass the trial judge and influence him in the trial of the suit, and was likely to impede the due course of justice and affect the mind of the trial judge as also to deflect him from pursuit of his duty as a Judicial officer. The court also held that the production of a second anonymous letter in court, alleging that pressure was being put on the trial judge through the High Court, was calculated to impair the administration of justice by creating an impression that the High Court was itself interfering with the due course of justice, and was likely to immediately bring the High Court and the administration of justice into disrepute.
Issues: Whether the production of an anonymous letter in court by an attorney for one of the parties in a civil suit, alleging that a judge of the High Court and the Registrar of the court were putting pressure on the trial judge in the case, was contempt of court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the production of the anonymous letter in court was calculated to embarrass the trial judge and influence him in the trial of the suit, and was likely to impede the due course of justice and affect the mind of the trial judge as also to deflect him from pursuit of his duty as a Judicial officer. The court also held that the production of a second anonymous letter in court, alleging that pressure was being put on the trial judge through the High Court, was calculated to impair the administration of justice by creating an impression that the High Court was itself interfering with the due course of justice, and was likely to immediately bring the High Court and the administration of justice into disrepute.
Final Decision: The High Court held that the attorney for the respondents society was guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 150 or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for ten days for contempt of court of the Court of Mr. R. P. Gaind, Subordinate Judge 1st Class at Karnal, and to pay a fine of Rs. 200, or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days for contempt of court of the High Court.
1. Sometime in 1961 Kutail Madhuban Co-operative Cold Storage Limited, through its president, respondent 2, filed a suit against the petitioner for recovery of Rs. 10,257.73 Paise. During the pendency of the suit respondent 1 obtained power-of- attorney from respondent 2 to conduct the proceedings in the suit for the plaintiff. One witness of the petitioner, who was defendant in the suit, named Kartar Singh, was under examination in the Court when on April 25, 1965, respondent 1 made an application under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for an inquiry relating to offences under Sections 193, 196, 199, 200 and 209 of the Penal Code against witness Kartar Singh, as also against the petitioner, his counsel Mr. Mehtab Singh and Mr. Chuni Lal Malhotra, and two others, named Sunder Dass and Ram Lal. A copy of that application is annexure-A to the petition of the Petitioner.
On June 2, 1965, respondent 1 made an application, copy Annexure-B to the petition, in the trial Court stating in the heading - "Petition for Enquiry and such proceedings as may be consequently necessary". With this application respondent 1 filed the original of an anonymous letter and a transliteration of it, copy of which is Annexure-C to the petition. It is more appropriate to reproduce first Annexure-C- "Kartar Singh, son of Raja Singh, is working in the factory of Sher Singh situated in Pahewa from several years. Being a Manager there, he is a partner. Kartar Singh himself trades in rice, and deposits money et cetera in the State Bank Thanesar.
Punnu Ram, son of Topan Ram, is a barber by caste and is his servant from 14 or 15 years. He used to sell milk before and received Rs. 30 per mensem as salary and is his manager now in Kalwatri. He is illiterate but does wear a pair of pants.
Sarkaria Sahib and Harbans Singh are putting pressure on the Subordinate Judge.
Your well-wisher."
The application, Annexure-B reads- "That on 18-5-1965 the petitioner (respondent 1), on return from Chandigarh, perused the Annexure (meaning Annexure-C) being true copy of a letter received by him by post.
2. That the last paragraph of the letter reads as under:-
Sarkaria Saheb va Harbans Singh Ki marfat Sub-Judge par dabav dala ja raha hai
3 That the petitioner (respondent 1) is personally aware of the fact that Mr. Justice Harbans Singh is on visiting terms with the defendant and Shri Sarkaria, a previous district Judge of Karnal, is also known to the defendant, who in turn makes himself busy socially.
4. That the allegation, if true, reveals a most highly disconcerting state of affairs affecting even the higher echelon of the judiciary and such as to call for investigation at the highest level.
5. That the letter being in Hindi and obviously from someone in the inner circle of the defendant or liable to getting information from the inner circle can be easily investigated in spite of its lack of signatures.
Prayer: It is prayed that in the interests of purity of administration and especially the judicial system, the vigilance department or a suitable high powered agency be asked to enquire into the matter."
This is signed by respondent 1. On June 4, 1965, the trial Judge made an order on that application of respondent 1, copy Annexure-IV to the rejoinder of the respondents, which reads- "The present application has been filed by the attorney for the plaintiff-society to the effect that he has received an anonymous letter that the defendant is trying to approach me through some of his friends and therefore this matter may be referred to the Vigilance Department or some high-powered agency. I want to place it on the record that as far as I am concerned nobody has even tried to approach or even talked to me on the subject and that should be sufficient for the plaintiff and its attorney to retain their confidence in the administration of justice. Under these circumstances the matter does not need any further enquiry by this Court because the case is already too o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
