1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 19 OF 2004 Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma. ... ..... Petitioner. Versus Mr. Abdul Rehman & Anr... ... ..... Respondents. Ms. Asmita Sali i/by M/s. Khaitan & Jaykar for the Petitioner. Mrs. P. H. Kantharia, APP, for the State. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and A. A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATED : 18TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. P.C.: We heard the respondent on the last date of hearing. As nobody was present on behalf of the petitioner, we adjourned the matter till today. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner today. 2. A letter was written by the respondent to the learned Chief Justice of this Court. The respondent was Counsel for one of the accused, Abdul Karim Ladsaheb Telgi, in fake stamps cases pending before the Court of Special Judge (under MCOCA), Pune. In his letter, he wrote that he had occasion to talk to the Petitioner in Yerwada Central Prison, Pune as the 2 petitioner was also an accused and during this conversation with the Petitioner he came to the conclusion that the petitioner, Mr. Sharma, had strong ties with the underworld and especially with active members of the notorious D-Company. He also gave information to the learned Chief Justice that a conspiracy was being hatched at the behest of the petitioner to eliminate the Judge, who was hearing the matter. On the basis of this application, this contempt petition was filed with the consent of the learned Advocate General. 3. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are vehemently denied by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the petitioner himself. It is also contended that the petitioner had never in fact met the respondent. In any case, in our view, the contents of this letter are not contemptuous to this Court. 4. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner was facing trial before the same Judge, this was an attempt to interfere in the judicial process. We feel, that is far fetched apprehension because from the assertions made in the letter we do not find that there was any attempt to interfere in the judicial process of the Court. Only certain informations, which the 3 respondent believed to be true, which might in fact could be wrong also, had been informed to the learned Chief Justice of this Court. Therefore, it might be that the petitioner has cause for defamation or any other remedy. But certainly it is not a case for contempt of Court. 4. For these reasons, we dismiss the petition and discharge the Rule. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (A. A. KUMBHAKONI, J.)s