( 1 ) ON an appln. by Sukhdeo, appct. , notices were issued to the opposite parties calling upon them to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of the Ct of Panchayati Adalat, rampur Athiri. The opposite parties have appeared and we have heard their defence.

( 2 ) ON 28 and 29-3-1950, two complaints were filed in the Panchayati Adalat of Rampur Athiri against the appct. on the allegations that several tenants had paid rent to the appct. , that he had not granted receipts to them saying that he was not dishonest and that he was in the habit of not issuing receipts. The Panchayati Adalat took cognizance of the complaints and summoned the appct. for trial Under Section 290, I. P. C. In the complaints no law was quoted under which the appct. had rendered himself liable to prosecution and apparently the Panchayati Adalat thought that the allegations in them made out an offence punishable Under Section 290, I. P. C. There was no quorum on 9-4 1950 and the cases were adjourned to 23-4 1950. The opposite party No. 3, kedar Nath is the Sarpanch of the Panchayati Adalat. On 12. 4-1950, an article was published in a weekly paper known as Gramwasi, the gist of it is