R. S. VERMA, J. - (1.) 'teesara Prahar' is a daily news paper published simultaneously from Jaisalmer, Jodhpur and Pali. On the front page of the issue of 9. 06. 1992, the paper carried a news item with the caption vnkyr esa Hkh igaqpk isls dk tksj The news item purported to be given by one Badri Bhatia, who is a respondent before us. The offending portions of the said news item are: *************
(2.) RESPONDENT Manish Vyas is the proprietor, Chief Editor, publisher and Printer of the said news paper. The Registrar of this Court brought this news item to the notice of Hon'ble the Chief Justice by submitting a written report dated 16. 6 1992, wherein the Registrar pointed out that "in the said news item vild (sic) allegations have been made against Hon'ble Judges of this Court, viz. Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. K. Mathur, Hon'ble Mr. Justice J. R. Chopra and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Y. R. Meena with a view to lower down the prestige of the judiciary of this State and which also amounts to unnecessary and illegal interference by a litigant in the administration of Justice. " It appears that the third portion of the news item, which pertained to the Court of Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Jaisalmer, escaped the attention of the Registrar. Hon'ble the Chief Justice on reading the news item and report of the Registrar, was satisfied that the news paper carried scandalous remarks with a view to lower the prestige of the Court and judiciary, hence he directed the matter to be listed before the appropriate bench. By an order dated 8. 7. 1992, a division bench of this Court took cognizance against Shri Badri Bhatia and Shri Manish Vyas for Contempt of the Court and directed issue of notices to the two respondents. Notices were duly served on the two respondents. Both of them have filed separate written replies to the notices issued to then. Both of them have admitted categorically that the news-item in question was published in the issue of 9th June 1992 of Teesara Prahar. It was also admitted that the news-item emanated from respondent Badri Bhatia. Both of them have seemingly unconditionally apologised for the Contempt committed by them. The gist of the reply of Shri Badri Bhatia is that he issued the press note in question out of frustration and in a mood of depression, after having lost mental equilibrium, details whereof have been given in the reply. The case set up by Shri Manish Vyas is that the news item was published without his knowledge and at his back. By an additional affidavit filed on 10. 8. 1993, he has taken a plea that on 9. 6. 1993, he was at Delhi in Hotel King Palace.
(3.) WE have heard learned Additional Advocate General who has assisted the Court. He submits that this is a case where grossest contempt has been committed by the two contemners who though have come out with apologies but the apologies are not sincere. Both the respondents have tried to come out with pleas in extenuation which are not substantiated and do not deserve to be accepted. The contemners should be awarded severe punishment so that it serves as an example to others. WE have heard Shri K. S. Rathore for Contemner Badri Bhatia and Shri R. R. Vyas for Contemner Manish Vyas. Both of them candidly conceded that by publishing the offending news-item and in particular the portions thereof reproduced above, the contemners did commit grossest Contempt of this Court as also that of a subordinate court. But, both of them urge that the unconditional apology tendered by the two respondents should be accepted by the Court and the Contempt should be taken to have been purged. In the alternative, it has been submitted that in view of the sincere contrition expressed by the respondents, lenient view may be taken in the matter of punishment. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. It appears that Jain Carrying Corporation Jaisalmer is engaged in transport business. Truck Operator's Union, Jaisalmer had some grievances against it and the Truck Operator's Union filed S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 873 of 1992 before this Court. Hon'ble Justice A. K. . Mathur dismissed this writ petition in limine. The Truck Operators' Union filed an appeal, being D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 110 of 1992. This appeal was heard for admission by a Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Mr. J. R. Chopra and Hon'ble Mr. Y. R. Meena, JJ and the bench issued show cause notices to the respondent but did not grant any stay in the matter. It was in this back ground that Shri Badri Bhatia gave the offending news item consisting of two portions (i) and (ii) reproduced above. The insinuation contained in the caption of the news items is that money power has reached the Courts also. Portion reproduced as item (i) alleges that the writ petition was got dismissed due to money power. Portion (ii) reproduced already alleges that only notices were issued in appeal and stay was not granted because of force of money. The two offending portions allege in categorical terms that, it was due to 'money power' that such orders were passed. 'criminal Contempt' has been defined in Sec. 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act No. 70 of 1971 ). This definition reads as follows: " Definitionsin this Act unless context otherwise requires, (a ). . . . . . . . . . . . (b ). . . . . . . . . . . . (c) "criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which (i) Scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court, or (ii) Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding, or (iii) Interferes, or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner; (d ). . . . . . . . . . . . " New, a bare reading of two portions (i) and (ii) reproduced above go to show that the two portions are highly scandalous and impute most improper motives to Hon'ble Judges of this Court and cast aspersions on their integrity and constitute grossest Contempt of Court: they have the clear cut effect of lowering the authority and prestige of the Court and suggest that justice could be easily purchased by money in this Court. Since the D. B. Special Appeal was pending when the publication was made, the publication tends to obstruct and interfere with the administration of Justice by suggesting that Hon'ble Judges hearing the appeal were not acting fairly and could not be expected to deliver even handed justice, Learned counsel for the contemners have very fairly and frankly conceded that the two portions (i) and (ii) reproduced above constitute grossest Contempt of the Court. ;