TMI Blog1980 (12) TMI 204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on. The 1st Additional Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, heard the two suits together and by a common judgment, dated October 31, 1974, dismissed the appellant's suit and decreed the suit of the then 1st defendant against him with costs. The decree-holder filed petition for execution of his decree against the appellant. The latter filed an application for stay of the execution. 3. When the execution and the appellant's application for stay were pending, the appellant on December 25, 1974 issued notice to the Additional Subordinate Judge, who had decided the suits against him. In that notice which is a lengthy document, he inter alia made these allegations against the Judge : 3. In the said judgment (O.S. Nos. 101/73 and 275/72) your honour created new facts by making third version without evidence as detailed below among others. 4. Your honour has intentionally, with bad faith and maliciously, disordered the existing oral and documentary evidence with a view to help the plaintiff in O.S. 275/72 causing damage and injury to me. 5. Your honour has maintained different standards in the same judgment with regard to Exs. B. 9, B. 10, B. 13 and A. 15 to A. 19 and A. 20 to A. 22 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n attempt to frighten the judicial officer by threatening to file suit for damages for Rs. 30,000/- and to undermine his self-confidence in dealing with causes that might come up before him for trial in future. The High Court concluded that what the appellant has stated in the notice in question, is clearly and squarely criminal contempt as defined by Section 2(c) of the Act. It negatived the defence raised by the appellant and convicted him as aforesaid. 7. Before us, the appellant has argued his case in person. He has also submitted written arguments which he has orally elaborated and supplemented. As before the High Court, here also the appellant intransigently maintains that there is nothing scandalous in the contents of the notice. In the written arguments he reiterates the imputation that the Subordinate Judge had deliberately delivered a dishonest Judgment against him and the Judge was guilty of serious misbehavior in the performance of his duties; that the allegations of bad faith malice etc. in the notice were facts constituting the cause of action, which were essential to be stated under Section 80, C.P.C. for the suit for damages which the appellant proposed to file agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted sense of the term, as connoting the power to do or order to do the particular act complained of, but is used in a wide sense as meaning generally the authority of the Judicial Officer to act in the matters . Therefore, if the judicial officer had the general authority to enter upon the enquiry into the cause, action, petition or other proceeding in the course of which the impugned act was done or ordered by him in his judicial capacity, the act, even if erroneous, will still be within his 'jurisdiction', and the mere fact that it was erroneous will not put it beyond his jurisdiction . Error in the exercise of jurisdiction is not to be confused with lack of jurisdiction in entertaining the cause or proceeding. It follows that if the judicial officer is found to have been acting in the discharge of his judicial duties, then, in order to exclude him from the protection of this statute, the complainant has to establish that (1) the judicial officer complained against was acting without any jurisdiction whatsoever, and (2) he was acting without good faith in believing himself to have jurisdiction. 11. In the instant case, the Subordinate Judge had unquestionably, the jurisdi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the three Sub-clauses (i) to (iii), only category (ii) refers to judicial proceeding . Scandalizing of Court in its administrative capacity will also be covered by Sub-clauses (i) and (iii). The phrase administration of justice in Sub-clause (iii) is far wider in scope than course of any judicial proceeding . The last words in any other manner of Sub-clause (iii) further extend its ambit and give it a residuary character. Although Sub-clauses (i) to (iii) describe three distinct species of 'criminal contempt', they are not always mutually exclusive. Interference or tendency to interfere with any judicial proceeding or administration of justice is a common element of Sub-clauses (ii) and (iii). This element is not required to be established for a criminal contempt of the kind falling under Sub-clause (i). 14. The next contention of the appellant is that his act in question falls within the exemption of Section 3, particularly the Explanation to that Section, since the suits in respect of which the notice was issued had already been decided and the execution of the decree against the appellant, though pending, did not constitute a pending matter for the purpose of availing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Section 3 expressly confines its operation to those categories of contempt which are referred to in Sub-section (1). Section 3(2) therefore, is not applicable to that category of contempt which Tails under Sub-clause (i) of Section 2(c), or which is otherwise of a kind different from those mentioned in Section 3(1). 16. In the instant case, the contempt committed, though not in connection with any pending proceeding, primarily and squarely falls under Sub-clause (i) though the aforesaid residuary phrase in Sub-clause (iii) may also be attracted. Unfounded imputation of mala fides, bias, prejudice or ridiculing the performance of a Judge or casting aspersions on his integrity as has been done by the appellant in the notice in question-are always considered to mean scandalising the Court, and lowering the authority of his court by bringing him and his office into disrespect and disrepute. Vilification of the Judge, even in administrative matters or decided judicial matters, may amount to criminal contempt under Sub-clause (i) of Section 2(c) as it lowers or tends to lower the authority or dignity of the Court by undermining public confidence in the capacity of the judge to mete o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
