Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.The applicant respectfully refrains from entering into further details in this regard and he would do the same if called upon. For the present suffice to say that in view of what is stated above there is well-founded apprehension in the mind of the applicant he would not get justice unless the case is transferred to some other Court of the competent jurisdiction".

The question which immediately arises is whether an allegation of the nature made in para (1) in the circumstances of the present case in a 'transfer application would amount to contempt of the two judges Sarvshri Sayyid and Baadkar. The High Court made a detailed examination of the evidence adduced before the District Judge and also relied on the reports of Sarvshri Sayyid and Baadkar. It came to the conclusion that the allegations made by the appellant had not been proved. It was observed that these allegations "in the above quoted paragraph" which means paragraph 1 were quite serious. The High Court was also influenced by the fact that the appellant had "pitched the case higher and tried to prove that the two judges concerned were continuously receiving from Mr. Jagiasi presents of large value in the shape of sarees and other articles and thus receiving bribes so as to indiscreetly favour Mr. Jagiasi and the litigants whom he represented in their Court". The appellant was not even willing to tender an apology and his position as an Advocate was naturally regarded as making the contempt all the more serious. The appellant, who has argued the case himself, has raised the following main contentions :

5.The show cause notice issued by the High Court containing the charge of contempt was confined only to paragraph 1 of the transfer application. The statements made in that paragraph could not by themselves constitute contempt.

In our opinion it is wholly unnecessary to decide points 1 to 4 because the appellant must succeed on the 5th point. This court has, after a review of all the relevant decisions, laid down in Perspective Publications (P) Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Maha- rashtra(1), inter alia, the following principles :-

that he had paid a sum of Rs. 500/- to the Magistrate. It was also asserted that the applicant was sure that he would not get impartial and legal justice from the Magistrate. It was held that the aspersions taken at their face value amounted to what is called ' scandalizing the court' itself and the attack on the Magistrate tended to create distrust in the popular mind and impair the confidence of the people in the courts. This decisions is quite apposite for the purposes of the present case. It decides that allegations made even in a transfer application casting aspersions on a judicial officer can constitute contempt of his court within s. 3 of the Act. It is difficult to comprehend that the mere statement that a Magistrate is friendly with a party who happens to be an advocate and enjoys his hospitality or has friendly relations with him will constitute contempt unless there is an imputation of some improper motives as would amount to scandalizing the court itself and as would have a tendency to create distrust in the popular mind and impair the confidence of the people in the courts. The allegations contained in para 1 of the transfer application may or may not amount to defamation of the two judges, namely, Sarvashri Sayyid and Baadkar but to constitute contempt the other tests which have been discussed above must be fulfilled. As noticed before the High Court confined the action, which was to be taken, only to the matter stated in paragraph 1 and did not choose or decide to include or consider paragraphs 2 or 3 either in the show cause notice or in the judgment the following part of which may be reproduced:-.

imposed on the appellant. That notice on the face of it discloses no such allegation which could be regarded as falling within the rule laid down by this Court and by a series of decisions of the Privy Council in which this head of contempt i.e. scandalizing court has come up for examination. Most of those decisions have been referred to in the case of Perspective Publications (P) Ltd.(1). In addition we may mention Debi Prasad Sharma & Others v. Emperor(2) in which in a newspaper report the Chief Justice of a High Court was untruly alleged to have committed an ill-advised act in writing to his. subordinate judges asking them to collect subscriptions for the War Fund. According to their lordships there was no criticism of any judicial act of the Chief Justice nor any imputation was made for anything done or omitted to be done by him in the administration of justice nor was there any criticism of him in his administrative capacity. In the opinion of their lordships the proceedings in contempt were misconceived. In our judgment the allegations contained in para 1 of the transfer application were not such as would amount to contempt of court. We cannot help observing that the appellant did not show the sense of responsibility in making the allegations in question which is expected from an advocate and in further attempting to substantiate them which he failed to do.