( 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 as follows : "kedar Nath, Sarpanch of Rampur Athiri has informed us that Sukhdeo has told all tenants who had become Bhumidars that he would issue receipts to them only on their paying full rent to him. He has not issued receipts to those who paid only part of the rent and they are being pressed to pay the full rent. They are also being threatened that if they do not pay the full rent, they would be ejected from the land. In addition, Zamindars have stopped the tenants from taking wood so the latter are finding great difficulty in constructing their houses. The district authorities should take immediate steps to remove this trouble of the Bhumidhars. "

( 3 ) THE Panchayati Adalat held proceedings in the cases on 23-4-1950 and 10-5-1960 and convicted the appct. Under/section 290, I. P. C. on 13-5-1950. The appct. filed an appln. in revn. against the judgment of the Panchayati Adalat and it is pending in the Ct. of the Sub-divisional mag.

( 4 ) THE opposite party No. 1 is the editor of the Gramwasi. The opposite party No. 2 was said to be its joint editor, but, in fact, is the sub-editor. The opposite party No. l is also a member of the provincial Congress Committee and the opposite party No. 2 is the President of the District congress Committee and member of the All India Congress Committee.

( 5 ) THE case for the appct. is that the Gramwasi has a wide circulation in the district of Mirzapur including village Rampur Athiri and that the article contains falsehood and was calculated to incite prejudice against him so that he might not have a fair hearing in the Panchayati Adalat and in the ct. of the Sub-divisional Mag, in revn. He admitted that he had not granted receipts to his tenant and pleaded that printed receipt books, which are sold in the treasury, were out of stock and the tenants refused to accept manuscript receipts.

( 6 ) OPPOSITE party No. 3 said in his reply that it was admitted by the appct. that he had not granted receipts, that the rest of the contents of the article did not refer to him in particular, that he had no intention of prejudicing the fair trial of the cases and that in case he was guilty of contempt he offered an "unqualified apology". The opposite parties l and 2 pleaded that they had no knowledge of any case pending before the Panchayati Adalat and that the article did not refer to any case they also offered unqualified apology if they had unconsciously committed the offence of contempt of Ct.

( 7 ) UNDER Section 2, Contempt of Courts Act, this Ct, has the same jurisdiction, powers and authority "in respect of contempts of Cts. subordinate" to it as it has, and exercises, in respect of contempt of itself. The only condition is that where a contempt is an offence punishable under penal Code, this Ct. cannot take cognizance