GYANENDRA KUMAR, J. :- By his order dated 9-5-1969, Katju, J. referred three questions to a larger Bench, arising in a contempt case. This is how the matter has come up before us.

2. The facts of the case are quite simple. The applicant, Ram Surat Singh, was posted as Tahsildar-Magistrate, 2nd Class at Kadipur, district Sultanpur between the 1st of February, 1964, and the 6th of June, 1965. He retired from service on 30-6-1966. During the period of his posting at Kadipur he decided complaint case No. 14 of 1964 Ram Samujh Pandey v. Ram Nawal Pandey, in which the accused was convicted under Section 323, I. P. C. and was sentenced to two months' R. I., on 8-1-1965. The accused preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge on 5-7-1965. Ram Nawal then filed a criminal revision before the Lucknow Bench of this Court which was dismissed on 14-7-1967, but the sentence of two months' R. I. was reduced to the period already undergone. The applicant also decided another complaint case No. 150 of 1964 Ram Surat v. Ram Pratap Singh and Ram Lakhan Singh under Section 323, I. P. C. and Section 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act. By his judgment and order dated 14-12-1964 the applicant convicted both the accused and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 50 and in default to undergo fifteen days' simple imprisonment. The convicted persons went up in appeal which was dismissed by the Sessions Judge on 31-3-1965.

3. The applicant further decided mutation case No. 60 of 1959 Beni Madho and others v. Sheo Harakh on 24-7-1964 in which it was ordered that the name of Ram Ujagar should be mutated in place of the deceased, Sheo Harakh. Appeal No. 11 of 1964 was preferred by Smt. Rampati which was dismissed by the Additional Collector Sultanpur.

4. On 24-8-1964 one Shiv Kumar Pandey (now opposite party No. 1) sent a confidential letter to the Home Minister, U. P. Government, inter alia, saying that the Tahsildar of Kadipur was taking a lot of bribe these days, which was being talked over throughout the tahsil. It was further alleged that by accepting bribes in certain cases of Gram Samaj he had decided them against the Gram Samaj, that in one mutation case he had taken a bribe of Rs. 600/-and in another case of Gaon Samaj he took Rs. 50/- as bribe. It was therefore, requested that an enquiry be made through the C. I. D. regarding the corruption of the Tahsildar.

5. The Deputy Secretary to the U. P. Government forwarded the aforesaid letter to the Vigilance Department for an enquiry into the allegations. By his order dated 29-6-1965 the Director of Vigilance directed an open investigation by Sub-Inspector Yadupal Singh belonging to the U. P. Vigilance Establishment (now opposite Party No. 12), after obtaining necessary permission of a competent Magistrate. By his order dated 7-7-1965 Shri A. W. K. Warsi, Magistrate Ist Class Sultanpur, authorised Y. P. Singh S. I. to conduct investigation into the complaint of corruption against the Tahsildar. Accordingly, the Sub-Inspector made enquiries in the matter and on 2-8-1965 recorded the statement of Ram Nawal (present opposite party No. 6) that the applicant used to demand bribe openly from the parties and that in the case of Ram Samujh v. Ram Nawal, under Section 323, I. P. C. he accepted Rs. 300/- from Ram Samujh who was complainant in that case. Thereafter he demanded Rs. 500/- from Ram Nawal, accused, which the latter did not comply with. The result was that the Tahsildar sentenced Ram Nawal to two months' imprisonment, which was affirmed by the Sessions Judge on appeal. On revision to the High Court, the Lucknow Bench was wrongly alleged to have acquitted the accused, though in point of fact the revision was dismissed but the sentence of two months' R. I. was reduced to the period already undergone.

6. Sub-Inspector Y. P. Singh also recorded the statement of Ram Lakhan Singh (opposite party No. 9), who stated that a case relating to cattle trespass and of marpit against him and his