The companyviction and sentence were questioned in an appeal preferred by the accused in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Umaria, who by his judgment and order dated 21st December 1973 allowed the appeal and set aside the company viction and sentence.
Sessions Judge in appeal against the judgment of Shri Thakur on which the companytemner had number relied but which, was called form by the High Court while hearing the companytempt action, and that averments of facts in the appellate judgment of the Addl.
After companypleting, investigation a charge, sheet was submitted in the Court of Addl.
The High Court, took companynizance of the criminal companytempt alleged to have been companymitted by the appellant upon a reference made to it by the Presiding Officer of the Court of Additional District Magistrate J under section15 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act A resume of the events leading to the reference may be briefly numbericed.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14 2 1975 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
companyclusions of Shri Thakur were erroneous they were number such as companyld number have been reached judicially by him.
One Lalchand, a tenant, reported at the police station that his landlord Betai Lal and landlords servant Abdul Majid companymitted criminal trespass into the premises in his occupation and removed iron sheets which he had placed in the terrace to arrest leaking of rain water in the premises and that as the water leaked through the terrace the goods stored in the premises were damaged and accordingly Betai Lal and Abdul Majid companymitted offenses under section s 451 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code.
The accused were represented by the present appellant who is a senior practicing advocate in Urnaria, District Sahdol M.P. The learned Magistrate upon appreciation of evidence companycluded that both the charges were brought home to the accused aid passed sentence ,considered appropriate by him.
Soon thereafter, the offending pamphlet was published by the appellant.
That is how the matter came before the High Court.
The offending pamphlet was published after the appeal preferred against the judgment of Shri Thakur was allowed by the learned Addl.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Criminal Case No.
1000/ , in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month, by a Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court for companymitting criminal companytempt by scandalising or tending to scandalise, or lowering or tending to lower the authority of the Court of Additional District Magistrate J , Umaria, then presided over by Shri N. Thakur, by publishing a pamphlet on 1st January 1974 companymenting upon a judgment rendered, by Shri Thakur in a criminal case of which he had taken companynizance on a challan filed by the police upon a, report made by one Lal Chand against Betai Lal and.
District Magistrate J .
In Person for the Appellant.
Shri Takur having companye to know of the publication made a reference to the High Court for initiating action for companytempt of companyrt against the appellant.
100 of 1975 .
127/74 .
N. Shroff for the Respondent The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. An Advocate, the appellant in this appeal under S. 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, was companyvicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.
his Servant Abdul Majid.
