1983 INSC 0005
                                              Ramchandra Mahapatra

                                                           Vs

                                                    State of Orissa

                                        Criminal Appeal No. 173 of 1975

                                       (E.S. Venkataramiah R.B. Misra JJ)

                                                      04.01.1983

                                                     JUDGMENT

VENKATARAMIAH, J. ­

Heard Mr. Vinoo Bhagat, learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is found guilty by the
High Court of an offence punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for
having written a letter containing certain scurrilous allegations against a Sub-divisional Magistrate
(Judicial) in the State of Orissa. When the case was taken up by the High Court for consideration the
learned counsel for the appellant produced before it a statement containing an unqualified apology
tendered by the appellant. The statement had been duly signed by the proper to exonerate the
appellant from the criminal liability incurred by him. Ultimately the High Court convicted the
appellant for the offence referred to above and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one
month. Aggrieved by the Judgment and order of the High Court the appellant has filed this appeal
under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act. We have gone through the record of the case. The
appellant wrote the letter containing scurrilous allegations stated above in the year 1974 and he was
found guilty of the offence under the Contempt of Courts Act in the year 1975. He is now on bail
pursuant to an order made by this Court for nearly eight years. Shri Vinoo Bhagat, learned counsel
for the appellant very fairly submitted that the appellant should not have written the letter in
question and he had done so when he was under great mental stress owing to certain proceeding
which had been initiated against him by his wife who had abandoned him. He again reiterates before
this Court that the unqualified apology tendered by the appellant before the High Court may be
accepted and that the sentence imposed on the appellant may be set aside. Having regard to the
nature of the accusation and the delay of eight years we are of the view that this is a fit case in
which we should accept the unqualified apology tendered by the appellant and set aside the sentence
imposed by the High Court on him. We accordingly accept the unconditional apology tendered by
the appellant and quash the sentence imposed on him by the High Court in these proceedings. The
appeal is accordingly allowed.

</html