JUDGMENT D.N. Roy, J.
1. This is a matter under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, which has been brought to our notice by the Deputy Commissioner of Sultan-pur. Certain judicial proceedings were pending before the, Judicial Magistrate of Sultanpur in which bail was granted to certain individuals on 22-4-1957, and the question of bail in respect of others was still pending. On 13-7-1957, that is during the pendency of the bail application, the respondents Maqbool Husain and Mpham-mad Muti approached the Judicial Magistrate at his residence and, in spite of his warning them against talking about any pending judicial matter, Maqbool Husain told him that the Magistrate had committed the grave mistake in releasing Smt. Abida Begum on bail in April, and Maqbool Husain also said that because of this order the prestige of the Magistrate had considerably fallen in the estimation of the public. He further told the Magistrate that if he released! Abida Begum on the subsequent bail application again on 13-7-1957, a section of the public which was strongly opposed to bail may move the higher authorities and the Magistrate may find himself in serious departmental trouble.
He suggested to the Magistrate a course, which according to him was a very safe course, namely, that the Magistrate should send Abida Begum in police custody to Hosangabad for being delivered to her brother Abdul Rashid. That verbal threat by Maqbool Husain to the Magistrate was repeated by the other respondent at the same time. The Judicial Magistrate concerned brought these facts to the notice of the District Magistrate who in his turn has moved this Court for necessary action in contempt.
2. The respondents are personally present and they have filed written statement tendering unqualified apology for the grossest contempt of the Court of the Magistrate which they have committed. We would! have been inclined not to accept the expression of regret which they have made on their part, because we find that cases of this nature of late are growing in number. There can be no doubt that every private communication to a Judge or a Magistrate for the purpose of influencing his decision upon a matter publicly before him always is, and ought to be. reprobated. It is a course calculated, if tolerated, to divert the course of justice, and is considered and ought, more frequently than it is, to be treated as what it really is, a high contempt of court.
But in view of the fact that the respondents have come up at the earliest moment to express their regret and to throw themselves at the mer cy of the court, we think that they should be considered purged of their sin by the expression of regret which they have made and by the as surance which they have given that they are not going to repeat this course of conduct over again.
Under the circumstances we accept their apology and direct that the notices issued to them be quashed. The respondents shall pay a sum of Rs. 80A, as fee to Mr. Sri Rama the Deputy Government Advocate who represents the State.
This fee should be deposited by the respondents in Court within a month of this date.