RACHAPUDI SUBBA RAO versus THE ADVOCATE-GENERAL, ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1981] 2 S.C.R. 320 · Decided: 10-12-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
RACHAPUDI SUBBA RAO 
v. 
THE ADVOCATE-GENERAL, ANDHRA JRADESH 
December 10, 1980 
[R. S. SARKAR!A AND 0. CH!NNAPPA REDDY, JJ.] 
Contenipt of Courts Act 1911-Sections 2(c), 3 and 13-Scope of.-Con--
tenuier attributed mala fides to a judicial officer in a 
j11dgnu:111 
which 
~t'Cflf 
against him-Notice issued by the co11te111ner during pendency of execution pro-
ceedings-Whether a1nounts to conten1pt. 
JVords and Pharases : "d11e co11rse of justice"-n1ea11i11g of. 
The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title in respect 
of a. building. 
The defendant in that suit filed another suit claiming damages 
against the appellant. 
Both the suits were heard by the Additional Sub-Judge· 
D 
who by a common judgment, dismissed the appellant's suit and decreed the 
defendant"s suit. 
The appellant thereupon issued notice to the Additional Sub Judge alleging 
that he (the Additional Sub-Judge) "created new facts'•, had ''intentionally and. 
\Vith bad faith and maliciously disordered the existing oral and documentary 
evidence with a view to help the plaintiff" in the second suit, had "maintained 
E 
different standards even with regard to self-serving statements" and that these 
acts could not be said to have been done in the discharge of his judicial 
duties within the limits of his jurisdiction in good faith and threatened to .se~k 
redress if damages claimed by him were not paid. 
F 
G 
H 
The Additional Sub Judge submitted this notice to the High Court for suitable· 
action being taken against the appeJlant. 
At the instance of the High Court 
the Advocate General instituted contempt 
proceedings against the 
appellant 
Negativing the appellant's defences the High Court convicted him holding that 
the passages in the notice were per se scandalous and 
scurrilous, that 
the· 
notice was a deliberate and determined attempt to scandalise the Judge anJ. 
the Court by imputing lack of good faith and nlala fides to a judicial officer 
in the discharge of his judicial dllties and that what the appellant had stated 
in the notice \Vas clearly 'criminal contempt' as defined in section 2(c) of the 
Contempt of Courts Act. 
In appeal to this Court the appellant contended (i) that bad faith and' 
malice stated by him in the notice were facts constituting the cause of 
action; (ii) that in any event since the suit had been disposed Of, execution 
proceedings did not constitute a pending matter and, therefore, what he stated 
fell within the exception of section 3, particularly the Explanation and lastly,. 
(iii) assuming that his action technically amounted to contempt of court no 
sentence could be in1posed on him in view of section 13 of the Act under 
which a person cannot be convicted for contempt under the court is sati!;flr.d 
'· 
• 
.... 
• 
/ 
• • 
' 
• 
• 
R. SUBBARAO v. ADVOCATE GBNL. A.P. 
321 
that it substantially interferes or ,tends substantially to interfere with the due 
A 
course of justice.-
J)ismissing the appeal, 
HELD : The tone, temper and contents of the notice imputing malice, 
partiality and dishonesty to the 
Subordinate Judge 
constitute a deliberate 
attempt to scandalise the Judge, to embarrass him and to lower the authority 
of his office and the Court. The act and conduct of the appel1ant in issuing 
the impugned notice fell squarely within sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of the defini-
B, 
tion of 'crin1inal contempt' in scctioa 2(c} of the Conte.mpt of Courts Act. 
[326G-HJ 
The conempt committed by the appellant is serious and gross. 
He ha5 
reckl"'51y imputed ma/a fides and l:u:k of good faith to the judicial officer 
who had decided the case against him. The imputations 
were per se scan-
C 
datous, actuated by bad faith. 
He did not even pretend to give any reason 
either in the notice or in the counter-affidavit for the alleged malicious attitude 
on the part of the judicial officer. Even in this court he' has not relented. 
He has not adopted, even obliquely, an attitude of contrition or a pretence 
of remorse. 
[329 HJ 
l. Section 1 of the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1850 affords protec-
D 
tion to t\\'O broad categories of acts done or ordered to be done by a 
judicial officer in his judicial capacity, namely (I) acts which are within the 
limits of his jurisdiction and (2) acts which though not within his jw·isdic-
tion were done or ordered to be done 
believing in good faith that he had 
jurisdiction. 
The protection afforded by the statute. to the first category 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.