Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Misra and Beg, JJ.
STATE - Appellant
Versus
KRISHNA MADHO - Respondents
Criminal Misc. 101 Of 1951
Decided On : 07/24/1951
CONTEMPT OF COURT - JURISDICTION - HIGH COURT - SUBORDINATE COURT - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 2, CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT - CONTEMPT OF COURT OF SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE - PUNISHMENT - ACCEPTANCE OF APOLOGY - SECTION 3, CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT - SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT.
Fact of the Case:
Four individuals, Krishna Madho, Balak Ram, Chunni Lal, and Manni Ram, were accused of contempt of court for sending a letter to a Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) during the pendency of a case under Section 110 CrPC. In the letter, they alleged that the defense witnesses in the case were related to the accused and should be disbelieved. The SDM took cognizance of the letter and issued notices to the four individuals to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of court.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the High Court had jurisdiction to punish contempt of court of a Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The court further held that the letter sent by the four individuals constituted the grossest form of contempt of court and that the apology submitted by them was not a free and frank confession of guilt. The court also noted that offenses of this kind were becoming more rampant and that mere infliction of a fine did not seem to have a deterrent effect.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to punish contempt of court of a Sub-Divisional Magistrate? 2. Whether the letter sent by the four individuals constituted contempt of court? 3. Whether the apology submitted by the four individuals should be accepted? 4. What sentence should be imposed on the four individuals?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the High Court had jurisdiction to punish contempt of court of a Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, which gave the High Courts the same jurisdiction, powers, and authority in respect of contempt of courts subordinate to them as they had in respect of contempts of themselves. 2. The court held that the letter sent by the four individuals constituted contempt of court as it was a private communication by strangers addressed to a Judge calculated to influence its decision in a pending case. 3. The court held that the apology submitted by the four individuals was not a free and frank confession of guilt and that it was an attempt to justify their conduct under the cover of bona fides. Therefore, the apology was rejected. 4. The court held that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary to deter such offenses and to uphold the administration of justice.
Final Decision: The court sentenced each of the four individuals to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay Rs. 160/- as costs of the State Counsel appearing in the case.
( 1 ) IN pursuance of an order made by a single Judge of this Court on 12-3-1951, four persons--Krishna Madho, Balak Ram, Chunni Lal and Manni Ram--appeared, before us to show cause why they should not be punished for having committed contempt of Court. Krishna Madho is the Pradhan and Balak Bam, the Up-Pradhan of the Gram Sabha of village Aurahwa, police station Pachperwa, district Gonda, Chunni Lal is a Prantiya Raksha Dal leader and Manni Ram is a panch of the Panchayat.
( 2 ) THE background of this case may be shortly stated. On 24-1-1950, Krishna Madho and Balak ram applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Gonda alleging that Basdeo, Jageshwar, Ishaq and others were bad characters habitually addicted to the committing of thefts and that preventive action should be taken against them. On the same day they as well as Chunni Lal and Manni Ram applied to the Panchayat Officer making a similar request. No report of any date prior to 24-1-1950, the date of the above application, existed against any of the persons named in the applications. After the two applications a large number of reports, one after the other, were made against the persons named in the applications and they culminated in proceedings under Section 110 Cri. P. C. against Ishaq, Basdeo and Others. The case under Section 110 Cri. P. C. was tried by Sri Ghulam Husain, Sub-Divisional Magistrate Utraula, and Magistrate 1st Class Gonda. It must be noted at this stage that Krishna Madho, Balak Ram, Chunni Lal and Manni Ram appeared as prosecution witnesses in the said case. They are P. Ws. 7, 8, 9 and 10 respectively. During the pendency of the case the aforesaid four persons, namely Krishna Madho, Balak Ram, Chunni Lal and Manni Ram sent a letter to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Utraula. This letter which is the basis of the present charge is to the following effect: "to the S. D. O. , Utraula, state v. 1. Ishaq s/o Kallu 2. Pujabe s/o Wirey
( 3 ) KALLU s/o Gaya Ram
( 4 ) SAKRULLAH s/o Namdar
( 5 ) BASDEO s/o Ramdhani resident of village Aurahwa P. S. Pachhperwa, u/ S 10 I. P. C. Sir, it is submitted that we belong to Gramsabha of Aurahwa. Against the above mentioned accused persons a complaint was made to the district officer Police Superintendent by our Panchayat officer of Gonda on 24-1-50. The case is now pending against the said accused in your Honble court. Prosecution evidence has been finished. The defence evidence is going on. The witnesses produced so far and those that will be produced on 4-10-50 are all relations of the accused, a list whereof is herewith filed. This fact may be given due consideration. These people defraud Court. The list is contained on two pages. It may be brought on the file. " the above letter is signed by Krishna Madho, Pradhan, Gram Sabha Aurahwa, Balak Bam, up-Pradhan, Chunni Lal Group Leader Aurahwa and Manni Ram, Gram Bakshak. It does not bear any date out the contents of the letter indicate that it was sent after the prosecution case was closed and just before the defence evidence was going to be produced. Appended to this letter is long list of 40 witnesses with comments against the name of each witness giving reasons why he is an interested or partial witness in the case and should, therefore be, disbelieved. 3. The case resulted in an order binding down all the persons against whom the proceedings were taken. Four of the persons bound down appealed before Sri Abdul Qasim Zaidi, Ses. J. Gonda, who dismissed the appeal. A revision against the said order of dismissal was filed in this Court (Criminal Revision No. 227 of 1950 ). This application was heard by Kidwai J. , who delivered judgment in the case on 12-3-1951, allowing the revision and ordering the discharge of the applicants. In the course of his judgment, he observed as follows: "the statements of Krishna Madho P. W. 7, Balak Bam P. W. 8, Chunni Lal P. W. 9 and Manni ram P. W. 10 are not entitled to any weight at all in-spite of the position which they occupy, becaus
AI
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
