B.Subhashan Reddy, C.J. - (1.) MR.M. Karunanidhi, former Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, eminent politician, statesman and litterateur, all rolled into one, is the contemner here. This proceedings have been initiated by the Advocate General of this State. The provocation for the initiation of the proceedings is the publication of some articles in a daily titled "Murasoli" on 5.12.2001, 6.12.2001, 7.12.2001, 13.12.2001 and 16.12.2001. Some facts need to be stated.
(2.) THE present Chief Minister Ms. J.Jayalalitha was the chief Minister during the years 1991-1996. For the period 1996-2001, Mr.M.Karunanidhi was the Chief Minister. Prosecution was launched against Ms.Jayalalitha that some criminal acts punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act were committed by her during her tenure as Chief Minister. THEy are popularly called as TANSI Land Purchase case and Pleasant Stay Hotel case. THE said cases were tried by the Special Court presided over by a Sessions Judge and they ended in conviction. She had appealed to this Court against the said judgments of the Special Court and they were heard by a learned Judge of this Court, who by his judgment dated 4.12.2001, reversed the judgment of the Special Court resulting in acquittal of Ms.Jayalalitha in the above two cases. This Contempt case has been filed on the premise that Mr.M.Karunanidhi is the Founder and Editor of the newspaper "Murasoli" and expressing his displeasure against the Judge, who has acquitted her, cast aspersions on them by way of statements and also cartoons and the same are contumacious and as such is liable to be punished for the said criminal contempt in accordance with the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Mr.M.Karunanidhi has appeared through his counsel Mr.R. Viduthalai and filed a counter affidavit denying all the allegations made by Mr.N.R.Chandran, learned Advocate General, in the contempt petition. The contentions pleadings can be divided into three parts as follows: " (i) interview of the press person with Mr.M.Karunanidhi; " (ii) cartoons containing the comments; and " (iii) imaginary conversation with two individuals. In so far as the cartoons and the comments thereof, Mr.M.Karunanidhi has denied authorship. He also denies that he is the Editor while admitting that he is the Founder of Murasoli. The Editor and Publisher are not parties to this case. As such, we eschew the said cartoon and the comments thereof from consideration, as there is no material by which they can be attributed to Mr.M.Karunanidhi. Coming to the interview with the press, it runs as follows: " (a) Q: What is your view regarding the judgment delivered today by the High Courte A: We respect Justice. I respect justice more than a Judge would respect Justice. Therefore, I have nothing more to say about this: " (b) Q: Do you think that juice will triumph if one goes to the Supreme Courte A: How can I say about this beforehande Some people can say in which Court one can get justice, but I am unable to say that. " (c) Q: Do you have agreement in this verdicte A: The said word "agreement" may also mean that the judgment was delivered by the Judge pursuant to an agreement. Therefore, it is better we do not use that word. This interview assumes significance, as the same was made on the date of the judgment in the above cases i.e., 4.12.2001 and published next day i.e., 5.12.2001. Substance of the interview relates to the judgment rendered on 4.12.2001 acquitting Ms.Jayalalitha and the Judge who rendered the judgment, even though the name of the Judge is not mentioned. But we are unable to deduce any meaning out of the above interview so as to determine that any derogatory remarks have been made against the Judge or his judgments.
(3.) THEN we go to the other pleading i.e., verse dated 15.12.2001 in the shape of imaginary conversation between two friends, one being a guileless person and another, worldly-wise. Mr.N.R. Chandran, the learned Advocate General, submits that there is enough suggestion and innuendo, under the guise of the said imaginary conversation, referring to the Judge that he had recorded a finding of acquittal against Ms.Jayalalitha for extraneous considerations. Mr.N. Natarajan, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr.M.Karunanidhi, counters this argument and submits that the conversation is imaginary and is a part of literary activity and nothing can be read into it so as to make out an act of contempt. He also submits that the contempt case is quasi-criminal and the degree of proof is high and in the face of the denial of the averments made in the contempt petition, there is no material before this Court so as to make out a case of contempt and an apparent reading of what is written in the articles mentioned supra does not make out any case of contempt. In support of his argument, he relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Mrityunjoy Das and another v. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman Mrityunjoy Das and another v. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman (2001)3 S.C.C. 739. Dealing with similar situation, the Supreme Court held: "14. As regards the "standard of proof" be it noted that a proceeding under the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court in terms of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act is quasi-criminal, and as such, the standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding and the breach shall have to be established beyond reasonable doubt"." We agree with the submissions made by Mr.N. Natarajan, learned senior counsel, appearing for Mr.M.Karunanidhi. From a reading of what is stated in the articles written by Mr.M.Karunanidhi in "Murasoli" a Tamil day newspaper, per se, we are unable to reach any conclusion that Mr.M.Karunanidhi has made any insinuations or derogatory remarks either against a Judge or Judiciary. There is no material before this Court from which it can be definitely held that there is an act of contempt. The contempt case can never be decided on probabilities. Even when two views are possible, because the contempt is quasi-criminal, benefit of doubt should be given to the contemner. Merely because the articles were published close to the date of judgment of acquittal, no presumption can be drawn that they were so published so as to malign the Judge or his judgment. In view of what is stated supra, this contempt petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Contempt proceedings are dropped and the contemner is discharged. ;