R M CHRISTIE Vs. R K THAPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For editing, printing, publishing and circulating Annexure 'A' to the petition an article against Hon'ble Mr. 'A' and the Judges of the Division Bench, the Court was moved by the petitioner, and on hearing the petitioner, the Court took cognizance and issued Rule on 16-2-1998, which was made returnable on 2-3-1998. At the request of the respondent No. 1, on 2-3-1998, we adjourned the matter to 9-3-1998. On 9-3-1998, learned Advocate for the respondents requested for time and we adjourned the matter to 16-3-1998.

(2.) The petitioner-in-person has preferred this petition and has argued in person. The respondents are served and Mr. P. M. Vyas, learned Advocate, made submissions on behalf of the respondents. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 remained present in the Court while the respondent No. 3 has not remained present for some personal reasons.

(3.) For a news item published in a news-weekly "Bhrastachar Virodhi Abhiyan" dated 20-1-1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'Abhiyan'), the petitioner has approached this Court to initiate action against the respondents under the provisions contained in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and under Art. 215 of the Constitution of India. For editing, printing, publishing and circulating the news-weekly, charge is served on the respondent No. 1 and it appears at page Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the petition which reads as under (reproduced verbatim except names of learned Judges) :