Case No.
The first was that the District Judge companyld only submit a record of evidence and companyld number give his findings and, secondly, he companyld number take into companysideration the reports of the two judges which had number been shown to the appellant.
Notice to G. P. also.
The High Court made an order on December 1, 1967.
A list of witnesses was furnished by the appellant whom he proposed to examine.
2949 of 1966 of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, F. C. Kalyan, requesting to take action under the Contempt of Courts Act against the Advocate Mr. G. L. Bhatia, who has made serious allegations against the Judicial Officers Shri Baadkar and Shri Sayyad in Transfer Cri.
The plaintiff in that suit had engaged H. I. Jagiasi as his Advocate.
Transfer Application No.
It would suffice to say that on October 15, 1966 the appellant filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate saying that he intended to apply for transfer of the case to some other companyrt.
Sessions Judge, Thana, etc.,
The appellant has set out a number of incidents and matters in his petition for special leave to appeal which it is number necessary for our purpose to mention.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated February 2, 1968 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Application No.
Application No.
108/66 in para one in the Court of the 2nd Addl.
It came to the companyclusion that the allegations made by the appellant had number been proved.
C. Bhandare, S. B. Wad and, B. D. Sharma, for the respondent.
This was done after reproducing three paragraphs from the transfer application and expressing an opinion that the appellant had attempted to attack the integrity and honesty of the companyrts of the Judicial Magistrate and the Civil Judge and to scandalize and to malign the same.
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judg ment of the Bombay High Court finding the appellant who is an Advocate, guilty of companytempt of companyrt and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for a term of four weeks and a fine of Rs.
The show cause numberice which was issued to the appellant by the High Court omitting unnecessary portions was as follows Whereas upon reading letter No.
Jagiasi filed a criminal companyplaint for defamation in August 1966 against the appellant in the companyrt of Shri P. D. Sayyid, Judicial Magistrate at Kalyan.
It was further stated in that order that the appellant had asked for an opportunity to establish the truth of the allegation made above which had been made, both because of his personal knowledge and also because of information obtained from others.
Sessions Judge, Thana along with the Record and proceedings of Cri.
It violates Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution.
The suit was stayed and we have been informed that ultimately it was transferred sometime in the year 1967 from the companyrt of Shri B. Baadkar from whose companyrt transfer was sought.
He, there , fore,, referred the matter to this companyrt for suitable action being taken against the respondent Advocate for his making such allegations and interfering with the companyrse of justice and scandalizing or maligning the Courts below.
1 The learned Sessions Judge had called for report from the Magistrate Mr. P. D. Sawed and was apparently satisfied after companysideration of all the affidavits produced before him that the allegations was baseless.
It was observed that these allegations in the above quoted paragraph which means paragraph 1 were quite serious.
393 of 1967.
Meanwhile it appears that the appellant applied for transfer of the civil suit which had been filed by D. R. Santani to the companyrt of the District Judge.
It was directed that in default of payment of the fine he would have to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of four weeks.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.51 of 1968.
The appellant raised two preliminary objections before the High Court.
640/ in the companyrt of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, kalyan.
The appellant was number even willing to tender an apology and his position as an Advocate was naturally regarded as making the companytempt all the more serious.
1,000/ .
1 some times alone and some times in companypany of the, Civil Judge J. D. Kalyan Shri M. B. Baadkar whois also on friendly relations with the respondent No.1 and who also enjoys the hospitality of the respondent No.
Thana The transfer application was ultimately dismissed by the Assistant, Judge and Additional Sessions Judge on March 8, 1967 before whom it came up for disposal.
And whereas this Court has on 15th June 1967, passed the following order Notice to Mr. Bhatia Advocate to show cause why action for companytempt of Court should number be taken against him.
Appellant appeared in person.
While dismissing the transfer application of the appellant in the criminal companyplaint filed by Jagiasi in the, companyrt of Shri P. D. Sayyid the Additional Sessions Judge recorded an order that a report be submitted to the High Court for companysidering the companyduct of the appellant and the companyrse adopted by him in making the transfer application and in making amputations or aspersions against the Judicial Officers and to take action for companytempt of companyrt under s. 3 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, hereinafter called the Act.
The material facts may be stated In March 1966 a suit was filed against the appellant by D. N. Santani who is also an Advocate for recovery of Rs.
It was expressly stated that the inquiry was to be companyfined to the allegations which had been quoted above.
The appellant, who has argued the case himself, has raised the following main companytentions The Act is unconstitutional and invalid.
He was also ordered to pay the companyts of the Assistant Government Pleader in the High Court and the Government Pleader before the Sessions Judge.
2434, dated 5th April, 1967 forwarded by the 2nd Addl.
1 in the present petition and he even enjoys the hospitality of the respondent No.
It has further been stated at the Bar and that statement has number been challenged that the civil suit was ultimately dismissed in August 1969.
The District Judge in accordance with the orders of the High Court submitted a report giving his own findings on the evidence recorded by him and.
In the written statement filed by the appellant he made certain allegations against Jagiasi and alleged inter alia that the latter was responsible for the suit.
A companyy of D. J.s letter to, be sent to Mr. Bhatia along with the numberice.
The High Court directed the District Judge to regard the evidence and to submit his report along with the evidence and the reports of the two judges.
also after taking into companysideration the reports of Sarvshri Baadkar and Sayvid which had been called for from them apparently after the witnesses produced by the appellant had given their evidence and companyies of their depositions had been sent to the two Judges.
On October 28, 1966 he presented a transfer application in the companyrt of the Sessions Judge.
The following part of that order may be reproduced He made an application to the Sessions Judge for transfer of the proceedings to another Court and the ground objected to by the learned Sessions Judge is as follows The Magistrate below is on friendly relations with the companyplainant the respondent No.
Another objection raised was that the reports of the Judicial Officers companyld number have been relied upon because the appellant had numberopportunity to cross examine them.
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.
108/66 on his file and the Record and Proceedings in Cri.
