JUDGMENT
Binod Kumar Roy and Amir Das, JJ.
1. On 8-1-1993 C. W. J. C. No. 114 of 1993 (R) was filed by the opposite party No. 1 in this Court to call for the records of Administrative Case No, sic) of (992-93, S, T. No. AP 208 (R) from the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Adityapur Circle at Jamshedpur and issue a direction to him to cancel Sales Tax Registration No. AP 208 (R) granted to Respondent No. 1 of that application along with some other reliefs. In C. W. J. C. No. 114 of 1993 (R) the Opposite Party No. 1 stated, inter alia, to the following effect:
(i) The petitioner got this petition drafted by Ex-Military personnel Sri Krishan Lal, and his merits regarding law knowledge and principles of Philosophy known to him who proved that on 24-11-1992, rebel injustice N. S. Rao with collusion Standing Counsel and D, C. Singhbhum East, rebel Gorelal Yadav, making this Law High Court of People salve, on the consideration, that Kishan Lai would be unable to discover the truth, but he is so efficient that they have been observed by him, their admission of guilt on 24-11-1992, as rebels before this Law High Court of People m Cr WJ.C. No. 57 of 1912 (R), who won the case on 19-10-1992 by the order of the High Court, dated 2-9-1992, .very wonder that guilty injustice rebel, so cunning, that he compelled all the injustices on the strength of High Court at Patna on 23-11-1992 as N. S. Rao’s agents, and if your Lordships desire to peruse the said case, be perused and one week time be allowed to the petitioner, for study of the said case in which Kishan Lai was petitioner, that how undesirable that Justices of High Court, be ascertained by perusal of mention, filed by Kishan Lai on 2341-1992 and placed by the dealing Clerk receiving from Goswami, Advocate Cleric, placing before N. S. Rao at 2, 15 p. m, on 23-11-1992 but due to heavy receipt of Rishwat through Standing Counsel and declaration of ownerless right of the Government, when due to Martial Law, State has no locus standi with Martial Law Area (Supreme Court), due to inviolable fundamental right of Kishan Lai, protected by not only Article 19 (f) the Constitution but also by Government of People of Bihar vide Martial Law, and the order dated 24-11-1992, inconsistent with fundamental right of Kishan Lai is always void, without reversal, as per Article 13 of the Constitution, let rebel N, S. Rao should feel shame whether he is cruel butcher to convert this Law High Court of People into But cherry already admitted by him under Rule of Pleading as per page 2 and 3 of the mention dated 23-11-1992 as the said petition was allowed by law on 20-10-1992, and no further date by Law High Court of People but date by rebels injustices, cruel butchers of this Law High Court of People (SC), and as such it is earnestly prayed that this petition be admitted ….
(ii) Even rebel C.J.B.C. Basak is having a share of the bribe from all injustices to allow them to serve as per irrebuttable presumption drawn by law admitted by him also as per page 2 and 4 of the mention dated 23-11-1992 filed by Kishan Lai in Cr. W. J. C. No. 57 of 1992 (R) and now the disposal of the aforesaid dated 24-11 1992, is the conclusive basis of conviction as rebel, to be tried by Board of Army Officers….
(iii) That this para is only for warning to Standing Counsel who is seed of this Corruption, poisonous to the life of this sovereign republic framed by the people of this ARYAVART, Rules and owners of this Law High Court of People, as such, photo copy of Information dated 2-11993 to the CAMP Commandant, Sonari Station Military Camp, Jamshedpur to be hand over to him after return from here, by Krishna Lal informant, that then G. P. on 2-11-1992 admitted before open Court at 10.45 Hrs. before Mr. Justice Nagendra Rai, the said Martial Law, who made an order-sheet dated 2-11-1992 the case ‘would be heard tomorrow’ but very wonder that on 3-11-1992, there was no entry in the order-sheet and although petitioner Krishna Lai was present even then the case was not heard due to ‘party obtains the order’, Rigid principle observed by Supreme Court, and when he was legally barred after admission of the Martial Law, who appeared on 24-21-1992 in this case, when the case was to be decided and is decided on 2-10-1992, by the order of High Court, through Hon’ble Justice N. P. Singh on 2-9-1992 in Cr, W. J. C. No, 57 of 1992 (R), disposed of on 21-11-1992 making Law High Court of People slave, by rebel corrupt injustice N.S Rao already not in service of the people on 20 7-1992 as per order-sheet of aforesaid writ case photo copy of which is filed herewith and marked as Annexure-10, now he is under duty allotted by Martial Law of the Government of the People to tell verbally to Hon’ble Bench of High Court of People that his G. P., appearing on 24-11-1992 as stated above, how much received heavy Foul Money, Free Honey, from rebel briber Crorepati Chiman Singh darkness, for distribution to (i) Rebel N. S. Rao (ii) Standing Counsel and (in) The respondent and all these servants of people, rebels forfeited their service of the people from 24-11-1992, why not this Law High Court of People having such power put them in jail custody of people and send them to C, J. M. Court, Jamshedpur for taking cognizance against them refusal agent of rebel and not of the people at the time of grant of relief to the petitioner, and it be observed that time is supreme ruler of all the universes, and your Lordships be in the iron grip of the Martial Law from the date, which would be for grant of relief, of the petitioner (SC).
(iv) …It is practice in the Supreme Court that if any case from Bihar Judiciary is filed before them and learned Counsel for the aggrieved simply prays that this case is from Bihar, the Justices of the Supreme Court enquire from the Attorney General, Bihar, that they are going to admit, and as Attorney General has perused the petition he must point out that this petition, be rejected and uptil now no Attorney General, Bihar, contended at the time of admission of any petition of the aggrieved a id 100% admission of such petitions of the aggrieved, not rejected and on this principle, your Lordship may be pleased to admit this petition, as the petitioner in on case, withdraw this petition but if any otherwise order, would gladly accept, and would proceed before Hon’ble Supreme Court of People under Article 136 of the Constitution, by special leave, as the petitioner is 100% correct….
2. On 18-1-1993 Opposite Party No. 1 filed a supplementary affidavit to his writ petition bearing CWJC No. 114 of 1993 (R) standing inter alia, to the effect that it is being filed for amendment of typing mistakes and for prevention of cognizable heinous violant crimes being committed by rupees one crore bribe from Chiman Singh to the Judges of this Court with few exception ; that records of Cr WJC No. 117 of 1991 (R) disposed of on 20-11-1991 and Cr WJC No. 57 of 1992 (R) disposed of on 24-11-1992 be put up with records of this case as they are in Jaw one that non-bailable warrant of arrests be issued against some Judges including C. I. mentioned in paragraph 5, describing them all rebels for receiving bribe.
3. The Opposite Party No. 1 on 25-1-1993 filed a second supplementary affidavit making some what similar statements.
4. That Opposite Party No. 1 made a motion in writing on 8-2-199J not to take up CWJC No. 114 of 1993 (R) on the ground of seri us illness of Opposite Party No, 2 and that a third supplementary affidavit would be filed when he will become all right and with whom he will come.
5. On 12-3-1993 the Opposite Party No. I filed a 3rd supplementary affidavit stating, inter alia, to the effect that as per warning of the Supreme Court, the Judges cannot refuse issuance of show-cause notices to the Respondents.
6. CWJC No. 114 of 1993 (R) was put up for Admission on 6 4-1993 before S. N. Jha and Narayan Roy, J.T., who after hearing the Opposite Party No. 1 passed the following order on that day:
This writ petition contains several derogatory and disparaging remarks against judges of this Court including the Chief Justice as also the Judges of the Supreme Court. An attempt has been made to scandalise and bring the Judges and, in fact, judiciary itself to disrepute. We are, prima facie, of the opinion that statements as made therein constitute gross criminal contempt. The petitioner, who appears in person, initially stated that the petition has been drafted by one Krishan Lai. He, however, admitted that he had gone through the same before swearing the affidavit in support of its contents. We told him the implications which may ultimate result in penal action under the Contempt of Courts Act and, therefore, we asked him whether he sticks to those statements of not. The petitioner says that he does.
Initially, we were of the opinion that having regard to the nature and extent of the allegations, the petitioner should be taken to custody and forwarded to jail forthwith but in good grace we decided to give an opportunity to him to reconsider the matter. However, for the present, we initiate a proceeding against the petitioner for contempt of Court and, direct him to show-cause as to why he be not punished for having committed contempt of this Court.
Let this matter appear on the daily cause list on 12-4-1993 at the top of the list on which date the petitioner shall be present in person. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to appear on that date, suitable coercive action would be taken to secure his attendance.
Registry is directed to open a separate case record in respect of the contempt matter under original criminal miscellaneous jurisdiction. Put up this case on 12-4-1993 along with contempt matter under the same heading, as directed.
This order has been passed in the presence of the petitioner.
7. On 9-4-1993 Opposite Party No. 1 filed his show-cause dubbing the order dated 6-4-1993 passed by S. N. Jha and Narayan Roy, JJ., as. illegal obtained by the Government Pleader No. 1 on the basis of bribe describing to latter as corrupt for depriving the life of the petitioner. In his show-cause Opposite Party No. 1 stated that he is “the petitioner in this case through Ex-Military Personnel Krishan Lai” (Opposite Party No. 2) here as well as before the Deputy Commissioner, A printed pamphlet as Annexure-1 was also attached which is captioned as “Mahabharat Yudh, 1993” in which Opposite Party No. 2 has been described as “Informant and Distinguished Jurist, Authorised Public Representative of whole Refugee Colony Land by Union and Bihar Government recorded in High Court” and Opposite Party No. 1 as his Secretary. In paragraph 3 of the show-cause opposite party No. 1 described Government Pleader as rebel, corrupt, guilty. In paragraph 3(a) he dubbed the show-cause notice as absolutely illegal and judges as offenders and not courts of justice. In paragraph 3(b) he stated to the effect that truthful submission against rebel injustices is not contempt and that this matter would be placed by Krishan Lai before the Supreme Court. In paragraph 3(c) he states, inter alia, to the effect that dismissal of his writ petition or drawing contempt proceedings would be an act of saving guilty rebels In paragraph 3(d) he states to the effect that Judges would forfeit right to decide this case they would be acting as agent of rebel injustices and they would be committing contempt of the Supreme Court and thus “this case be transferred for further trial to any higher Bench (SC)”. In paragraph 3(e) it has been stated to the effect that publication Mahabharat Yudh 1999, in Annexure-1 by Krishna Lai undoubtedly clearly proves that all injustices including C. J. concerned with common intention of receipt of bribe abetted and instigated Executive Magistrate and that their guilt is lying in S.D.O. office, Jamshedpur In paragraph 4 he prays for allowing 3 months’ time to have relief from the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Judges do not proceed in accordance with the Rules of Procedure as they would be acting as agents of .rebel injustices with common intention of bribe.
8. Even though the Opposite Party No, I was asked to appear he did not appear on the next date.
9. On 18-5-1993 Aftab Alam and Narayan Roy, JJ., issued a direction to the Chief Judicial Magistrate to produce opposite party No. 1 before this Court.
10. In the meantime Summer vacation intervened and the writ application and this proceeding both were placed before us (one of us joined Ranchi Bench by |way of Circuit) on 29-6-1993. The Opposite Party No. I was produced before us. We beard him and on his Prayer enlarged him on bail and gave an opportunity to file further show-cause.
11. The Opposite Party No. I filed his further show-cause praying to exonerate him of the charges and permit him to withdraw the writ application being CWJC No, 114 of 1993 (R) alleging, Inter alia, to the effect that he is an un-experienced person about the court matters; that when he placed facts before one of his friends, namely, Sri Krishan Lai (Opposite Party No. 2) who advised him that he will make a draft of the writ application to be submitted before this Court and in good faith he got the writ application and its supplementary affidavit drafted by him ; that he has no intention to disrespect this Court and if there is any disrespect he humbly appologises for the mistake which was not intentional, that in future he shall not disrespect this Court, that he is running a cycle shop at Sakchi, Jamshedpur in the name and style of “Satyam Agencies” and from small earning of that shop, lie is maintaining livelihood of his family of which he is head and if he is put behind the Bars lot of difficulties will arise and he will not be in a position to look after his family and maintain the affairs of the establishment which is being run under his guidance, that he was under the influence of Sri Krishan Lai when this Court put the question which he replied in affirmative but now he understands that he had committed mistake and, therefore, withdraws his statement, that be has now no connection with Shri Krishan Lai with whom he shall keep no connection in future and shall be alert ; that he apologises for mistakes which were committed by him under the sway of Sri Krishan Lai, that he is aged over 60 years and has got no past criminal antecedent or entangled in any type of court cases, that if any type of punishment is awarded for his mistake, which was not intentional, there will be a black spot on his career which will also damage his career and prays to amend his mistakes (if any) considering it to be first one and not intentional and within his knowledge that the show cause filed on 9-4-1993 was written by Shri Krishan Lal that on 12-4-1993 he was bed ridden at Jamshedpur and unable to come, that even on subsequent dates he could not appear before this Court, as he could not know them, that subsequently he was informed that this Court has closed for summer vacation, that he apologises for the inconveniences faced by this Court due to his non-appearance and that he begs an unqualified apology.
12. On 30-6-1993 we hoard the opposite party No. 1 and passed orders initiating proceedings in Contempt against Opposite Party No. 2 also and gave an opportunity to him to have his say in the matter.
13. Opposite Party No. 2 appeared and filed his show cause through Sri R.C. Khatri, a learned Counsel of this Court, stating, inter alia, that Virendra Kumar had not come to him for any kind of help/suggestion for filing his case, that he had not drafted the case as alleged by him, that he has not committed any kind of offence under any law of the country as he is a peace loving Citizen of India.
14. Opposite Party No. 1 prayed for an opportunity to file a reply to the show cause of opposite party No. 2 as he stated that his denials are false.
15. The opposite party No. 1 filed his reply stating, inter alia, to the effect that since he was under the treatment of Dr. Suresh Choudhary, Civil Assistant Surgeon, M.C.M. Medical College Hospital, Jamshedpur from 10.4.1993 and was ill on 12-4-1993 hence could not attend the Court, that to prove that Sri Krishan Lai used to produce such type of drafts, copies of his letters dated 23-2-1393 addressed to the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar and dated 12-4-1993 addressed to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhalbhum, Jamshedpur are being filed and marked as Annexures ‘B’ and ‘C which show that he has his own motives and habits to write such things which were not to support the case of the Opposite Party No. 1 but were motivated, that a Specialist be appointed to go through the connected writ application as well as the letters aforementioned as well as other related documents written by him, that he has no knowledge about the drafting and producing the case before this Court which were all prepared by Sri Krishan Lai on his behalf who used to dictate to various typists at Jamshedpur Court and prepare documents to be filed in the lower Courts as well as before this Court, that as no manuscript (draft) was prepared by Shri Krishan Lai, he is unable to produce the manuscripts of his draft in his own writing, that his un-qualified apology and the show cause be accepted and he be exonerated from the charges besides permitted to withdraw his application bearing G. W.J. C. No. 4 of 1993 (R).
16. The Opposite Party No. 1 during further hearing on 9-7-1993 reiterated the statements made by him in his second show cause and his Reply and begged apology. Mr. Khatri, learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 2, however, contested the proceedings submitting that the stand and the statements made by the Opposite Party No. 1 are all misconceived and incorrect and that the Opposite Party No. 2 has not committed any offence. Mr. Khatri or the Opposite Party No. 2, who was present in Court on that day, and is present today, did not deny the genuineness of the documents appended to the writ petition, its supplementaries and to the show cause filed by the Opposite Party No. 1.
17. The Doctor’s certificate appended as Annexure-A to the reply dated 9-7-1993 of the Opposite Party No. 1 does show that he was under his treatment from 10-4-1993 and ill of acute bacillar dysentery requiring him complete bed test for one week for his treatment and cure. However, it is of little significance as it was the duty of the Opposite Party No 1 to come to this Court after his recovery and know of the fate of his case and this proceeding.
18. The Opposite Party No. 2 did not dispute Annexure-B, the letter dated 23-2-1993 in which he described N. Rai, J., of this Court, who was holding Court by way of Circuit at Ranchi in Court No. IV as injustice Nagendra Rai in whose Court Cr. W. J. C. No. 57 of 1999 (R) filed by Opposite Party No. 2 was running. The Opposite Party No. 2 did not dispute either the genuineness of the letter dated 12-4-1998 (Annexure-C) in which he described himself as “distinguished jurist authorised public representative of whole Refugee Colony land by Union and Bihar Government recorded in High Court.”
19. From the records of Cr.W.J.C. No. 57 of 1992 (R) it transpired to us that on 20-7-1992 N. S. Rao and S.K. Chattopadhayaya, JJ., after bearing the Opposite Party No. 2 in person had directed to list this case in ordinary course and that when placed for hearing on 24-11-1992 called out time and again but dismissed for default as neither the Opposite Party No. 2 nor any body else appeared on his behalf to press it.
20. We are deliberately not referring to other statements occurring in the aforementioned Cr. W. J. C. No. 57 of 1992 (R) filing Opposite Party No. 2 concerning the Judges of this Court as well as of the Hon’ble Supreme Court but it appears to us that some of the Hon’ble Judges of this Court have earned the wrath of the Opposite Party No. 2 either when they had not passed orders to list his case out of turn or when his case was dismissed for default.
21. From the records of Cr. W. J.-C. No. 39 of 1979 (R) (vide paragraph 22) filed by Opposite Party No. 2 it appears that in 1977 he was working as a private Assistant of Shri Jagdish Singh, Advocate of this Court at Ranchi. When we put a question today to Mr. Khatri as to whether the Opposite Party No. 2 was a Clerk, he on querry from him stated that it is not true. Then we confronted Opposite Party No, 2 with reference to the original records of Cr. W. J. C. No. 39 of 1979 (R), after some time he admitted and stated that yes be was Clerk, though in 1977. This goes heavily against his conduct.
22. From the records of this Court it appears that Opposite Party No. 2 has been moving this Court time and again by filing several cases including C. W. J. C. No. 2937 of 1975 (R) and Criminal Misc. No. 2027 of 1973 and is well known with the procedures of this Court.
23. Perusal of the records of Cr. W. J. C. No. 57 of 1992 (R) filed by Opposite Party No. 2, and that of C. W. J. C. No. 114 of 1993 (R) filed by Opposite Party No. 1 leaves no manner of doubt in our mind that they were by one person, namely, Opposite Party No. 2, During hearing we law showed the records of Cr. W. J. C. No. 57 of 1992 (R) to the Opposite Party No. 2 who very frankly stated that they all are in his writings. He so admitted before us that the letters Annexures-B and C to the supplementary show cause of Opposite Patty No. 2 were his. The statement of Opposite Party No. 2 to the effect that Opposite Party No. 1 had not come to him for any kind of help or suggestion for filing this case before this Court and that he had not drafted his case are all false.
24. It is unfortunate that being a Clerk of a learned Advocate of this Court and being well versed he has chosen to make such allegations against some Judges of this Court in particular and the judiciary as a whole and had tried to bring all of them to disrepute.
25. From the counter affidavit dated 2-11-1992 of the Deputy Commissioner in Cr.W. J. C. No. 57 of 1992 (R) filed by Opposite Party No. 2 it appears that his father Kanshi Ram, who was refugee, was allotted a portion of land having an area of 40 ft. X 22J ft. in plot No. 2421 under Khata No. 218 as Holding No. 64 Sindhi Refugee Colony, Jamshedpur which after the death of allotted Kanshi Ram it in the possession of opposite party No. 2 and his brother Madan Lal whose occupation has not been interfered with by the State authorities. In view of the stand taken by the State authorities, there was no justification for Respondent No. 2 to make wild allegations through Opposite Party No. 1.
26. We do not want to make this order more bulky by stating other similar unfortunate statements made by Opposite Party No. 2 in hit petitions filed earlier before this Court, which we had perused ourselves.
27. In the aforementioned view of the matter, we hold that the defence of the Opposite Party No, 2 in his show cause that ho was not author of the writ petition and its supplementaries filed by the Opposite Party No. 1 is untrue and reject his defence.
28. We also do not find any thing on the records of the Court that Opposite Party No. 2 was addressed by the Hon’ble Judges of this Court as a ‘distinguished jurist. However, we do not attach may significance to this aspect of the matter.
29. Opposite Party No. 1 had struck on 6-4-1993 to the correctness of the statements made by him in his writ petition and its supplementaries. On 6-4-1993 be was told of the implications of making such statements. It is difficult for us now to allow him to turn round and shoulder the entire responsibility of making such wreckless and contemptuous statements on the shoulders of Opposite Party No. 2 alone.
30. All these leads to only one logical conclusion that Opposity Party Nos. 1 and 2 both have tried to scandalise the judiciary and some Judges including the Chief Justice of this Court to disrepute.
31. We, accordingly, hold both of them guilty of criminal contempt.
32. The Opposite Parties, however, appear to be men of age. Opposite Party No. 2 claims to have taken part in the freedom struggle of this country, but has not offered any apology in writing.
33. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, we convict them of having committed gross criminal contempt of this Court, cancel their bail bonds and sentence them to be in custody of the Court till we rise and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2, 000 (Rupees two thousand) each, in default thereof to undergo two months’ simple imprisonment.
34. We, authorise the Joint Registrar, Ranchi Bench of this Court to collect the fine, if deposited, by Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 and do the needful, and discharge the rule accordingly.