The judgment establishes the importance of strict proof of 'criminal contempt' charges, the requirement of mens rea, and the significance of good faith and absence of improper motive in the discharge of official duties by a judicial officer.

1. These three appeals arise out of a common judgment of the High Court of Kerala holding the appellants guilty of contempt of Court.

2. S. Abdul Karim, the appellant in Criminal Appeal 118 of 1971, was at the material time, a Munsiff-Magistrate posted at Perambra. He was Respondent No. 3 in the contempt petition filed in the High Court and will hereafter be referred to as R.3

3. A. P. Parukutty Mooppilamma and A. P. Achuthankutty Nair, appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 195 of 1971 were respondents 1 and 2 in the original petition before the High Court, and will hereinafter be called R.1 and R.2. The appellant K. P. Ramaswami in Criminal Appeal No. 196 of 1971 was Respondent 4 before the High Court. He will, for short, be called R.4.

M. K. Prakash. Respondent No.1 in all these appeals before us, was the petitioner in the contempt petition before the High Court. He will hereafter be called as 'P'.

The facts are these;

4. R.1 is the owner of the Olathukki Ariyalakkan Malavaram in Kayanna Amsom which is managed for and on her behalf by her son, R.2. On March 28,1969, R-1 presented a petition through R-2 to the Superintendent of Police, Kozhikode alleging that the accused persons (P and his men) were likely to trespass into the Olathukki Ariyalakkan Malavaram to remove her timber. It was alleged,'P' had collected a large number of persons and equipped them with dangerous weapons, unlicensed guns, swords etc; that the sheds constructed by the petitioner and occupied by his workers and watchmen were being attacked and there was an apprehension that'P' and his men would demolish the sheds. The Superintendent of Police appears to have forwarded this petition to the Police Station, Kayanna where, on its basis, a case under S.143, 447 and 506, Penal Code was registered against'P' and others.

5. The Sub-Inspector in-charge of the Police Station, went to the spot and took into possession the disputed timber comprising of 587 logs and entrusted the same on a kychit to two strangers. On April 22, 1969,'P' made an application, Ex. P-3, before the Magistrate (R-3) praying that the seized logs be handed over to him. Thereafter. 'P' also made an application to the Magistrate claiming the timber to be his property and prayed for delivery of its possession to him. The Magistrate thereupon issued notice to the Police who made a report. After hearing the Counsel of the rival claimants and perusing the Police report (Ex. P-17) and other materials, the Magistrate on April 28,1969, passed an order, directing the Forest Range Officer to keep the logs in his custody pending further investigation by the police. Against this order, 'P' filed Cr. Revision Petition no. 176 of 1969 in the High Court. No interim order directing the Magistrate to stay further proceedings or defer further action regarding the delivery of the disputed timber was issued by the High Court.

6. While 'P's Revision application was pending in the High Court, the Police Officer, R-4 after completing the investigation, obtained the opinion of the Assistant Public Prosecutor on September 20,1969 and submitted a Final Report on September 24, 1969 to the Magistrate (R-3). The material part of this Final Report runs as under:

"On 16 7 69 a petition from the complainant was received alleging that the investigation conducted by my predecessor was one-sided and biased against him and he had produced certain documents to support his contention that the property belongs to him and which were not considered by my predecessor Based on this petition I continued the investigation, I questioned the Divisional Forest Officer. Calicut and the Forest Range Officer, Kuttiady They stated that the permit issued to M.K. Prakash in Kalpaidiyan Thirumudiyan Malavaram was stayed by the Government and hence not operated upon till now. They also stated that the 587 logs of timber seized by my predecessor were from Olathukki Ariaakkan Malavaram in the possession and ownership of the mother of the complainant and t