Allegations against judicial officers that undermine public trust can constitute contempt of court, emphasizing the need to protect judicial integrity.

1. The Advocate General, Andhra Pradesh, has filed this petition against D. Seshagirirao, the respondent herein, for action under S.3, S.4 and S.5 of the Contempt of Courts Act , The respondent is said to have committed contempt of court by reason of the scurrilous attacks winch he made against the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, and the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Kakinada in the letters which he addressed to them on 30-10-1964.

2. In order to appreciate the points tit issue, it may be necessary to state a few facts.

3. The respondent filed a criminal complaint against the officials of Gurazanapalli Salt Factory, near Kakinada in East Godavari District under S.447, S.506 find 500 I.P.C. and S.22 - D of the Central Excises and Sail Act, No. 1 of 1944 (hereinafter referred to us 'the Act"), alleging that without any manner of justification they trespassed upon the land (salt pan), and prevented him from manufacturing salt for a day. He claimed title to the land, and also contended that he was under no obligation to take a licence from the department for manufacturing salt, on the ground that no notification was issued by the Government to that effect in respect of the land in question. The trial Magistrate held that the salt officials committed the acts alleged in the exercise of their duly and that no injury had been caused to the respondent, and acquitted the accused. Against the judgment of acquittal, the respondent carried the matter in appeal to this court in Criminal Appeal No. 266 of 1962, Sharfuddin Ahmed, J., in his judgment dated of 16-10-1962, observed that the public prosecutor conceded that no notification under S.6 of the Act had been issued requiring a licence to be taken even in the case of small scale manufacture of salt. Even so, it was argued on behalf of the Department before the learned Judge that according to the lease deed executed by the respondent in favour of the salt officials, he was prevented from subletting, and as the officers honestly thought that the respondent had sublet, they thought they had to prevent the complainant from manufacturing the salt. The learned Judge found that the respondent was in possession of the land and manufacturing salt for quite a long period, that he also executed a lease in favour of the department in 1953, and that the lease was being acted upon. The officers gave notice to the respondent and sought the help of the police in order to prevent manufacture of salt as the believed that the respondent sublet the pan, and they acted bona fide in the discharge of their duties. They did not bear any grudge towards the respondent and were not interested in dispossessing him, or inducting some other person, and soon after the police refused to interfere in the matter, the department withdrew their peons from the site, and the work was not stopped for more than a day. The learned Judge, therefore, held that there was no criminal intention on the part of the officers when they entered upon the property, and that they were not liable for an offence under S.447 I.P.C., and confirmed the judgment of the Magistrate.

4. Even during the pendency of Criminal Appeal 266 of 1961, The salt factory officer, Guruzanapalli, filed C. C. No. 834 of 1962 on the file of the Additional Judicial II Class Magistrate, Kakinada, against the respondent on the ground that he contravened S.6 of the Act, read with R.102 of the Rules made thereunder, and that he committed an offence punishable under S.9 of the Act. The case of the Department was that in respect of survey No. 5, under platform No. II, measuring about Ac. 3-00 in Gurazannapalli salt