Jamuar, J.

1. Ranglal Sharma, the opposite party, has appeared in person today to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of court.

2. The facts are shortly these. On 10-7-1956, Ranglal Sharma, who is resident of Chandil within the district of Manbhum, handed over a closed envelope to the bench clerk of the District Judge of Manbhum Singhbhum, and the bench Clerk made over the envelope to the District Judge. On opening this envelope the District Judge found a letter addressed to him, dated 9-7-1956. This letter was signed by Ranglal Sharma and he described himself therein as the Managing General Secretary of an organisation called "Vishwa Mitrata Gram Udyog Sangh". The letter, which is in printed form in its major portion, described the object of the Sangh as being collection of fund, removal of unemployment. Social uplift, awakening of culture, uplift of Harijans, backward classes, aboriginals and females in villages through Sarvodya Samaj and establishment of world friendship and Ram Rajya. The subject-matter of the letter as described by Ranglal Sharma was regarding a public agitation. Ranglal Sharma gave himself some importance by purporting to state in that letter that whatever information which he was conveying to the District Judge was in the capacity of some officer of the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, for he stated that the letter was "according to India Government Circular No. 13235/, 262 S.P.E. 49-III dated 16-9-50 is sued by the Special Officer, Police Establishment, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi". It is now admitted that all this was entirely what has been called bogus as he had nothing to do with the Police Establishment of the Ministry of Home Affairs in the Govt. of India. The subject-matter of the letter was that there was a serious complaint against the then Subordinate Judge of Jamshedpur amongst the public, information regarding which he was sending to the District Judge. He complained that there was a complaint of black marketing and bribery. He named certain persons and included in that list the Subordinate Judge of Jamshedpur and alleged against them that they were taking undue advantage from the Tata Iron and Steel Company Ltd. as they were seeking employment, for their relatives, and that they were associated with the company in an illegal manner. It was further stated that there were many other complaints besides those which he was investigating and about which he would be informing the District Judge soon. He then stated : "There is a rumour that the Subordinate Judge has taken bribe of rupees two or three lakhs" and then the District Judge was informed that news about cheating the public of Jamshedpur by means of pairvi in cases, through brokers and black marketing and corruption indulged in by the Subordinate Judge were available. The District Judge was, therefore, requested to make an enquiry into the matter and help the public.

3. The District Judge addressed a communication to this Court to obtain directions from the Court. This Court informed the District Judge that if he was of the opinion that the Subordinate Judge had been scandalised and that action was necessary he could refer the matter under the Contempt of Courts Act. Thereafter the District Judge recommended to this Court that an action was called for against Ranglal Sharma under the Contempt of Courts Act. As the allegations made by Ranglal Sharma in the aforesaid letter addressed to him were false and unfounded on a consideration of this letter from the District Judge, the District Judge was directed in the first instance to draw up a proceeding calling upon Ranglal Sharma to show cause if he was the author of the letter containing the aforesaid allegations, against the Subordinate Judge and thereafter report for an action for contempt if he was not satisfied with the cause shown by Ranglal Sharma.

4. The District Judge then drew up a formal proceeding and called upon Ranglal Sharma to appear before him on certain date to say if he was the author of the letter sent to him and offer such explanation as he may. Though notice was duly served upon Ranglal Sharma, he did not appear before the District Judge, but, instead, he sent a closed cover by registered post showing cause. In this communication made to the District Judge Ranglal Sharma again described himself as follows:

"Pandit Ranglal Sharma, Honorary Worker, Special Police Establishment, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, camp P. O. Chandil, district Manbhum".

5. I may repeat that the description which Ranglal Sharma gave about himself was wholly false. At the commencement of this communication he made a note stating "The copy of the letter of the Government of India." This again was false as there was no communication from the Government of India. Again in paragraph 1 he repeated as follows;

"According to the instruction contained in Special Police Establishment, Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India New Delhi, Letter No. 13235/262 S. P. E./49-III dated 16-9-50 I am sending something about which people are agitated." The entire information to the above effect was not only incorrect but a piece of deliberate falsehood. In paragraph 2 of the letter he purports to repeat the same thing. Ranglal Sharma then complained to the District Judge that his bench clerk had opened the letter which he had on the former occasion sent to him which the bench clerk had no business to do. The District Judge has reported that this was incorrect as he himself had opened the letter. Ranglal Sharma threatened that since the bench clerk by opening his letter had made the subject-matter of that letter public, his life and the life of his workers had been endangered and further said, If due to the public coming to know of the contents any harm comes to me or my workers you and our Government will be responsible for the same".. He admitted that he had made over a letter addressed to the District Judge to a man whom he called the confidential man of the District Judge, and regarding his power to make such a communication to the District Judge, he told the District Judge:

"please enquire from the Special Police Establishment, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India New Delhi. Please enquire from them what powers I have been vested with under Letter No. 13235/262 S. P. E.-49-III dated 16-9-50."

Ranglal Sharma had been given no power under any such letter from the Ministry of Home Affairs as is now admitted. All these statements were made deliberately to mislead the District Judge and in an attempt to put him under some threat. With regard to the allegations made against the Subordinate Judge, Jamshedpur, Ranglal Sharma now admitted that they were all incorrect. He even said that in his former letter he had not accused the Subordinate Judge of bribery or black marketing, or that he had not done anything like that, and further that he had made no allegation whatsoever against him. He nevertheless explained that some of the workers who are labourers in the Tatas were making some hulla gulla against the Subordinate Judge, but that up till then he and his Sangh had not received any complaint against the Subordinate Judge from the public. Ranglal Sharma then hastened to say "Please note it that there is no allegation against him. The Subordinate Judge is innocent. He does not know it but some people are indulging the corrupt practice in his name. This is learnt from the rumour spread in the public. No information has been received as yet in this regard. If we receive any we shall communicate it to you. No complaint against the Subordinate Judge is found. We shall send to you if we receive any. He is an innocent person. If we receive further information we shall send it to you."

To show his importance regarding who he was, Ranglal Sharma has stated in this letter that he bad been summoned to appear before the District Judge, but that he required information at least a month prior to the date on which he was to appear because "our tour programme is prepared one month in advance and I shall not be able to appear on 27-9-56. Please allow one months time so that I may appear before you. My programme for 27-9-56 is already drawn up and I have to follow if.

All this, it is admitted was entirely false and clearly to mislead the District Judge and to increase his so-called importance. He sent that letter as an honorary worker, Special Police Establishment Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. This description, as I have already stated more than once, has been admitted to be entirely false.

6. The District Judge having considered the show cause petition sent a report to this Court stating that to the best of his information Ranglal Sharma was not an employee or in any way connected with the Special Police Establishment, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, and that though he admitted to have sent the former letter containing the allegations against the Subordinate Judge of Jamshedpur, he now stated in his show cause petition that the Subordinate Judge was innocent, and that Ranglal Sharma indulged in various irrelevant and uncalled for matter. The District Judge was satisfied that it was a clear case of contempt of Court, and he submitted a report against Ranglal Sharma to that effect to this Court.

7. It was in those circumstances that this Court issued a notice upon. Ranglal Sharma to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of court in respect of the allegations which he made against the then Subordinate Judge of Jamshedpur. Ranglal Sharma, as already stated, has appeared in person and is represented by Mr. S. K. Mazumdar who has filed a petition in this Court signed by Ranglal Sharma. In this petition Ranglal Sharma has expressed his extreme sorrow for having written the letter to the District Judge which had contained allegations against the Subordinate Judge of Jamshedpur and has stated that he was "extremely ill advised" to write that letter. Ranglal Sharma then states in his petition that he offers his unqualified and unconditional apology for sending that letter and he never intended to interfere with the administration of Justice. In the final paragraph he says "That the deponent desires to take this opportunity of expressing his deepest respect for the learned Subordinate Judge and the dignity of the said Court, and prays that the unqualified and unconditional apology may be accepted and the rule for contempt be discharged."

8. Now, there can be no manner of doubt that the act done by Ranglal Sharma in writing the letter to the District Judge charging the then Subordinate Judge with black marketing and bribery was calculated to bring the learned Judge into contempt and to lower his authority; that is surely contempt of court. This was what has been termed in legal language as scandalising a Court or a Judge, It is now no longer asserted by Ranglal Sharma or on his behalf by his learned Advocate that there is no case of contempt against him. The position taken up by Ranglal Sharma now is that he offers an unqualified apology for what he had done which should be accepted by this Court. There is no doubt that this Court has the power to discharge the con- temptor after accepting such an apology, but the question is whether in the circumstances of the present case this procedure should be adopted by this Court. In my opinion, it should not be. Here is a case where there was a definite suggestion and allegation made against the integrity of the Subordinate Judge, and a person who makes such a suggestion or allegation must not be permitted to assume that he can do so and then plead immunity from, punishment by expressing an apology for his offence, owing to the scandalous nature of the allegations made against the Subordinate Judge, I am of the opinion that not only some punishment but a deterrent punishment should be awarded to the opposite party. Allegations against judicial officers have become too frequent and it is necessary that a stop should be put to making such false, scandalous and loose statements and allegations against the Subordinate Judiciary.

9. For all these reasons, Ranglal Sharma must] be found to have committed contempt of Court and I would sentence him to undergo two months simple imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-and in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for two months.

H.K. Choudhuri, J.

10. I agree.