1. This is a case for contempt of Court against Mr. Gajadhar Prasad, M.L.A., on the complaint of the District Magistrate of Benares. There was a com. plaint made by one Behari against Ram Lachhan Singh on 3rd August 1938 to the District Magistrate and after police enquiry, which was against the complainant, a Magistrate ordered the issue of summons to the accused on 22nd September 1938 under Sections 447, 426 and 504, I.P.C. A letter dated 25th August 1938 but postmarked 12th September 1938 was sent by the pre. sent accused to the District Magistrate. This letter states that the case of Behari against Ram Lachhan Singh was a true case and that the District Magistrate should have a proper enquiry made by the C.I.D. and have the accused Ram Lachhan Singh punished if the matter was proved and that ho should also write to the zamindar not to keep an ox-convict and high-handed person, meaning the accused Ram Lachhan Singh. This letter was extremely objection-able and should not have been written when an enquiry was pending into a criminal complaint. On 10th October 1938 a second letter was written by the accused to the District Magistrate about the complaint of one Nanak Ham, a student, against five caste Hindu zamindars and the letter asked that the District Magistrate should withdraw the case which was pending under Section 107, Criminal P.C. It is clear that by these letters the accused thought that his position as a member of the Legislative Assembly entitled him to issue instructions to the District Magistrate which should only be issued by the High Court. No member of the Legislative Assembly has any tight to interfere in such a manner in the course of the administration of criminal justice. When the matter was brought to the attention of the accused by the District Magistrate on 10th November 1938, a letter of apology was written by the accused to the District Magistrate. When the District Magistrate became aware of the second letter, he asked the accused on 16th November 1938 to give an undertaking for the future not to interfere in the administration of justice. In reply to that letter the accused wrote on 28th November 1938 stating : 'The question of giving an undertaking hardly appears necessary or graceful.' It was in consequence of that letter that this Court issued a notice to the accused. He has appeared today and he has given an undertaking as follows:
I am extremely sorry that I wrote the letters. I offer an unqualified apology for my action which I sincerely regret. I throw myself at the mercy of the Court. I have already sent an apology to the Collector and Magistrate of Benares. I beg to assure you that hereafter I shall never make such a mistake and shall never write about any pending case in the future.
2. We consider that this undertaking is sufficient to meet the circumstances of this case and accordingly we accept the apology of the accused. The proceedings therefore may be filed. We make no order as to costs.