Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

The State Of Bihar v. Ranglal Sharma Opposite Party.

Patna High Court

Jul 22, 1957

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

The opinion, delivered by Jamuar, J., concerns proceedings against Ranglal Sharma for contempt of court arising from letters he sent to the District Judge of Manbhum Singhbhum. On 10-7-1956 Ranglal handed a closed envelope (containing a letter dated 9-7-1956) to the bench clerk for the District Judge. The letter, largely printed, purported to be from an organisation called “Vishwa Mitrata Gram Udyog Sangh” and described its objects. In the letter Ranglal Sharma claimed an official connection with the Special Police Establishment, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, and purported to rely on a Government of India circular (Letter No. 13235/262 S.P.E/49-III dated 16-9-50) — all of which was later admitted to be false.

The letter contained serious allegations of black marketing, bribery and corrupt practices against various persons, including the then Subordinate Judge of Jamshedpur (including a rumour that the Subordinate Judge had taken two or three lakh rupees). The District Judge, considering the matter, sought directions from "this Court" and was advised that he could refer the matter under the Contempt of Courts Act. The District Judge then initiated formal proceedings, served notice on Ranglal Sharma and called upon him to show cause.

Ranglal did not appear in person before the District Judge; instead he sent a further communication by registered post repeating false claims of official status and making other statements. When the District Judge drew up a report, he concluded that Ranglal was not connected with the Special Police Establishment, the allegations against the Subordinate Judge were false or unsubstantiated, and the conduct amounted to contempt. The District Judge submitted a report recommending action for contempt to the Court.

This Court issued a notice to Ranglal Sharma to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt. Ranglal appeared in person before this Court represented by Mr. S.K. Mazumdar and filed a petition expressing extreme sorrow, describing himself as "extremely ill advised" to have written the letter, and offering an unqualified and unconditional apology and requesting that the rule for contempt be discharged.

Jamuar, J. delivered the leading opinion finding that Ranglal had committed contempt (scandalizing a Judge), concluding that an apology should not suffice in the circumstances and that a deterrent punishment was necessary. The Court sentenced Ranglal Sharma to two months' simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 250, with default further simple imprisonment for two months. H.K. Choudhuri, J. concurred. The record notes: "Contemner punished."

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the letters sent by Ranglal Sharma, containing false allegations and statements purporting official authority, constituted contempt of court by scandalizing a judge.
Whether an unqualified and unconditional apology offered by the contemnor should lead the Court to discharge the contempt rule in the circumstances of this case.
If contempt is established, what form of punishment (including deterrent punishment) is appropriate.

Arguments of the Parties

Opposite Party (Ranglal Sharma)

Submitted a petition expressing extreme sorrow and stated he was "extremely ill advised" to have written the letter containing allegations against the Subordinate Judge.
Offered an unqualified and unconditional apology, stating he never intended to interfere with the administration of justice and requesting that the rule for contempt be discharged.
In his show cause communications he made and later repeated claims that he was an honorary worker of the Special Police Establishment, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India (a description which he later admitted to be false).
At one point in correspondence he sought time to attend, asserting his "tour programme" required one month's notice (a representation to the court about his availability, later acknowledged as false in aspects relating to his claimed status).

District Judge / Court Submissions

The District Judge reported that Ranglal Sharma was not an employee or connected with the Special Police Establishment, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.
The District Judge found that the original letter contained false and unfounded allegations against the Subordinate Judge and that Ranglal's subsequent communications included deliberate falsehoods and attempts to mislead or threaten the District Judge.
The District Judge concluded that the conduct amounted to contempt of court and submitted a report recommending that action under the Contempt of Courts Act be taken.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis proceeded along the following lines, based solely on the facts reported to it:

Characterisation of the conduct: The Court found that the original letter and subsequent communications contained false, scandalous and unfounded allegations directed at the Subordinate Judge of Jamshedpur, and that these allegations were calculated to bring the judge into contempt and lower his authority — described in legal terms as "scandalizing a Court or a Judge."
False impersonation and deliberate misrepresentations: Ranglal's repeated assertions of official connection with the Special Police Establishment and his reliance on a Government of India letter were held to be wholly false and deliberately made to mislead the District Judge. The Court noted admissions by Ranglal that these descriptions were untrue.
Threatening and misleading conduct: The Court accepted the District Judge's report that Ranglal attempted to cast blame for any harm to him or his workers on the District Judge and the Government, and that he made other misleading statements about the handling of his letters (e.g., who opened the envelope), which the District Judge refuted.
Apology considered but rejected as sufficient: While the Court acknowledged that it has the power to discharge a contemnor after accepting an apology, it examined whether that course was appropriate. Given the seriousness and scandalous nature of the allegations, the Court concluded an apology alone would be insufficient in this case. The Court emphasised the need for deterrent punishment because allegations against judicial officers had become too frequent and required a stop to false and loose statements against the Subordinate Judiciary.
Conclusion on sanction: Having determined that Ranglal's conduct constituted contempt and that deterrence required punishment beyond accepting an apology, the Court imposed a penal sentence (two months' simple imprisonment and a fine), with a statutory default period for non-payment of the fine.

Holding and Implications

Holding: Ranglal Sharma was held guilty of contempt of court (for scandalising the Subordinate Judge) and was sentenced to undergo two months' simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, with a further two months' simple imprisonment in default of payment. H.K. Choudhuri, J. agreed with the judgment. The record notes: "Contemner punished."

Implications:

The direct effect on the parties: Ranglal Sharma received the specified criminal sentence and fine; the District Judge's report was accepted and the rule for contempt was not discharged despite an unqualified apology.
Broader consequences: The Court expressly emphasised deterrence against false, scandalous and loose allegations directed at the Subordinate Judiciary, indicating a policy preference for imposing punishment in such circumstances to check the frequency of such allegations.
Precedential effect: The opinion itself does not state that it establishes a new legal precedent. The Court applied contempt principles to the facts and exercised its discretion to refuse to discharge the contemnor on the basis of an apology; no distinct new legal rule is announced beyond this application.

Show all summary ...

Jamuar, J.:— 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 new 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. 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 scandalized 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.”

6. 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 16 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.”

7. To show his importance regarding who he was, Ranglal Sharma has stated in this letter that he had been summoned to appear before the District Judge, but that he required information a 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 month's time so that I may appear before you. My programme for 27-9-56 is already drawn up and I have to follow it”.

8. 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.

9. The District Judge having considered the show cause petition sent a report to this Court staring 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.

10. 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.”

11. Now, there can be no manner of doubt that the act done by Ranglal Sharma in wilting 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 scandalizing 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 contemptor 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.

12. 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.

13. H.K Choudhuri, J.:— I agree.

K.S.B

14. Contemner punished.