In the meantime a criminal case was started against Revashankar in the companyrt of the Additional City Magistrate, Circle No.
The third aspersion was of a more serious character and it was that the Magistrate had a hand in a companyspiracy hatched by Messrs. Mohan Singh and Uma Shankar Chaturvedi regarding certain ornaments of Chandra Mukhi Bai with the object of involving, Revashankar and his brother Sushil Kumar in a false case of theft of ornaments.
This companyplaint was verified on July 13, 1953, and was registered as Criminal Case number 637 of 1953 in the companyrt of one 1374 Mr. N. K. Acharya, Additional District Magistrate, Indore.
In this suit Chandra Mukhi Bai filed an application for permission to prosecute her husband for forgery.
An objection was raised on behalf of the accused persons to the appearance of Mr. Kulkarni as the latters name appeared in the list of witnesses.
Another application was filed by certain other persons said to be other tenants of Ganga Ram in which some allegations were made against Revashankar.
In that case one Mr. Kulkarni appeared on behalf of the companyplainant Revashankar.
This application companytained some serious aspersions against the Magistrate, Mr. N. K. Acharya.
The case was then heard by a Division Bench companysisting of V. Newaskar and S. M. Samvatsar, JJ.
500 to the Magistrate through Ganga Ram.
The accused persons appeared on August 8, 1953, through Messrs. Mohan Singh and Uma Shankar Chaturvedi.
The application purported to be one under s. 528, Code of Criminal Procedure.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
The first aspersion was that from the order dated October 12, 1953 it appeared that Mr. N. K. Acharya wanted to favour Mr. Uma Shankar Chaturvedi.
It was an application thrown in the face of the Magistrate himself.
The facts so far as they are relevant to this appeal are these.
J. Umrigar and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellant.
The second aspersion was that from certain opinions expressed by the Magistrate, Revashankar asserted that he was sure that he would number get impartial and legal justice from the Magistrate.
It was stated that the suit was filed in the name of Ganga Ram and his wife Chandra Mukhi Bai.
On this report the High Court directed the issue of numberice to Revashankar to show cause why action should number be taken against him under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 and Criminal Miscellaneous Application number 2 of 1954 was accordingly started against Revashankar.
On March 3, 1954, Revashankar showed cause.
These aspersions were later repeated in an affidavit on December 21, 1953.
The aspersions were summarised by the learned Judges of the High Court under the following four categories.
On January 11, 1954, the learned Magistrate reported the aforesaid facts to the Registrar of the Madhya Bharat High Court, and prayed for necessary action against Revashankar for companytempt of companyrt.
That case was numbered as 644 of 1953.
and by an order dated February 9, 1955, the learned Judges held that by reason of the provisions in s. 3 2 of the Act the jurisdiction of the High Court was ousted inasmuch as the act companyplained of companystituted an offence under s. 228 of the Indian Penal Code.
103 of 1956.
One Ganga Ram, stated to be the landlord of the respondent Revashankar, instituted a suit, which was numbered as 1383 of 1952 in the companyrt of the Additional City Civil Judge, Indore, for ejectment and arrears of rent against Revashankar.
On June 29, 1953, Revashankar filed a companyplaint against five persons for an alleged offence under s. 500, Indian Penal Code.
On that date Revashankar filed an application in the companyrt of the Additional District Magistrate who was in seizin of Criminal Case number 637 of 1953.
This was followed by a spate of applications and companynter applications and on October 12, 1953, the learned Additional District Magistrate passed an order to the effect that the companyies of the applications as well as of the affidavits filed by both parties should be sent to the District Judge for necessary action against the lawyers companycerned.
2, for an alleged offence under s. 497, Indian Penal Code.
It was further alleged that one Mr. Uma Shankar Chaturvedi, a lawyer acting on behalf of Ganga Ram, advised the latter to sign the name of his wife Chandra Mukhi Bai though Chandra Mukhi Bai herself did number sign the plaint or the vakalatnama.
The case was started on the companyplaint of Ganga Ram.
