- (1.) THIS is an application in respect of alleged contempt of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan filed by the petitioner regarding a news item published in daily newspaper Rajasthan Patrika of Jaipur publications, of which the non-petitioner is an Editor.
(2.) THE petitioner was sitting member of Rajasthan Legislative Assembly at the time of filing this application and has mentioned in the application that he has filed this application as he is closely associated with public associations and is interested in maintaining and upholding the majesty of law and dignity of judiciary. He has further stated in the application that Rajasthan Patrika is a popular daily newspaper, published simultaneously from Jaipur, Jodhpur and Udaipur. and has wide circulation in Rajasthan and that he is a regular reader of this paper. On 4th March, 1983, the petitioner went to the Railway Station, Jaipur around 5. 45 A. M, to receive some guests when his attention was attracted by the hawker selling the copies of Rajasthan Patrika, who was repeatedly shouting "mehmano KO PAHOONCHANE WALE DIBBE ME NA CHADHEN VARNA JAIL JANA PADEGA, HIGH COURT KA TAJA FAISALA". THE petitioner further stated that large number of people collected there to purchase copies from the hawker and every buyer was keen to go through this news item, which he was shouting loudly. It is further alleged that the said news item was hotly discussed and commented upon by the passengers and railway staff on duty and the people who frequently visit railway station and most of the people were hurling filthy abuse to the judiciary and were using filthy and unprintable language. According to the petitioner the said news item lowered the authority of court and poisoned the minds of people against the court. It is also stated that the petitioner visited so many places and met people from different walks of society and came to know that the said news item was the talk of town and every one was laughing and making mockery of the courts, Judges and Parliamentary system. THE intellectuals were commenting that innocent persons are harassed by the magistrates and that entire judiciary from top to bottom is corrupt and that politicians have packed the courts with incompetent Judges etc. This news item according to him continued to be discussed for quite some time, which lowered the prestige of the court and eroded the faith of masses from the judiciary. THE petitioner was, therefore, greatly pained to read such a news item which had shaken his faith in judiciary. THE petitioner's mind was perplexed and to know the correct position of law, he obtained a certified copy of the order dated 28. 1. 1983. After going through the said order, the petitioner felt that the non-petitioner had published the news item with mala fide intention to interfere in the legal process to help the accused and to lower the prestige in the eyes of people at large, which amounts to contempt of court. An affidavit has also been filed by the petitioner in support of his application. In the reply filed on behalf of the non-petitioner it has been stated that the non-petitioner has greatest respect for the Hon'ble Court, judiciary and majesty of law and he was never willingly or unwillingly shown any disrespect to it. The allegations made in the petition have been denied and it has been pointed out that the hawkers mainly shout about only those news item, which are published on the front page or on the last page and unusual news is published on the last page. The alleged news item was published on the 3rd page, which shows that this was considered to be a news of much less importance. It has been submitted that the entire version is hypothetical as none of the readers commented or wrote even an iota of description made up by the petitioner to the editor. Hundreds of letters of readers commenting on various news item or articles are received every day and prominent of such letters are published under the heading 'lok-mat'. It is further submitted that the entire version is imaginary and that the non-petitioner did not obstruct the course of justice and the allegations levelled by the petitioner are totally false and frivolous. This non-petitioner has further stated that he had people from judiciary. The reply has been supported by an affidavit of the non-petitioner. We have heard the rival contentions of learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the news item (Annex. 1) and have also gone through the record. This news item is regarding the 4 applications filed under Section 482. Cr. P. C. 1973 against the order of learned Judicial Magistrate (Railway) Jaipur dated May 8, 1982. Briefly the facts of the case pending in the court of Railway Magistrate are that on 7th/8th May, 1982, Dr. Manoj Bhargava along with his family was travelling in first class coach by 2 Down train from Ajmer to Delhi and was in possession of railway pass. At the time of checking, the train was shunting and while the train was being shunted, 4 persons (hereafter referred to as the applicants) were also found in the same coach. The ticket collector accompanied by First Class Railway Magistrate detected the applicants travelling without tickets or railway passes. They were however, found in possession of platform tickets. A charge sheet was prepared and submitted to the Railway Magistrate. The Railway Magistrate recorded the statements of all the 4 accused persons, two of them admitted their guilt and stated that the platform tickets were given to them by their relatives and they have travelled from Ajmer to Jaipur without tickets in First Class and they prayed to be excused. The remaining two accused persons stated that they had entered the coach without proper tickets and they were caught at the time of shunting operation and they had committed mistake and prayed for pardon. Thereafter, case was adjourned for arguments and orders under Sec. 252 Cr. P. C. Dissatisfied with above proceedings, all the 4 accused applicants filed 4 petitions under section 482 Cr. P. C. 1973 which were rejected by a common order of this court dated January 28, 1983. The news item regarding the above order was published on page No. 3 of Rajasthan Patrika dated March 4, 1983. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of the court is dated 28. 1. 1983, whereas the news item was published in Rajasthan Patrika on 4. 3. 1983. This clearly shows that this news item was published after such a lapse of time only with mala fide intention to lower the dignity of the court and shake the faith of judiciary in public as a whole. He has also pointed out that the very caption given to the news mentioned above also clearly shows that this news item was printed with mala fide intention and is a deliberate act of 'suppresio veri and suggestio falsi'. The news as printed gives an impression that as if the court has ignored the law and principles of natural justice in giving the above order. It has been further stated that the contemner did not even bother to obtain the certified copy of the order of this court to properly understand the same, but deliberately published the same with a view to malign the court. It has been contended by the learned counsel that the first paragraph and the last 3 lines of the news make it abundantly clear that the news item has been deliberately distorted to give an impression to intellectuals and public at large that the entire judiciary from top to bottom is corrupt and that politicians have packed the courts with the incompetent judges. It is contended that such filthy words, were heard by the petitioner for number of days at various places from intellectuals and members of public whom he had occasion to contact. He has stressed that last 3 lines have been printed with mala fide intention that the Judge who gave this order was incompetent and did not possess sound knowledge of law to decide the matters in accordance with law.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the contemner on the other hand has raised a preliminary objection stating that the contempt petition is not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). He has drawn our attention that a criminal contempt can be filed only in one of the following ways under sec. 15 of the Act :- i) the Supreme Court or the High Court may take action on its own motion, or ii) the Advocate General may file criminal complaint himself or with the consent in writing of the Advocate General. In this case the complaint has been neither filed by the Advocate General nor his consent in writing has been obtained by the applicant. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the contemner that this court has also not taken any action suo-moto in this matter. Therefore, the contempt petition is liable to be rejected summarily on this preliminary objection itself. He has also contended that since more than one year has passed from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the proceedings for contempt have now become time barred and no action can be taken on the same. It will be seen from the order sheets of the file that after the petition for contempt of court was filed, it was ordered as 18. 8. 1983 that this may be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for necessary orders. Thereafter, the matter was placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 29. 9. 1983 and a Bench of two Judges consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. M. Lodha and Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. K. Sharma was constituted to hear and decide this contempt petition. On 10. 1. 1984 the above mentioned Division Bench of this court, after hearing the petitioner, passed the following order: " Issue notice to Kapoor Chand Kulish, Editor, Rajasthan Patrika, Keshargarh, Jaipur". Learned counsel for the contemner has contended that the above order dated 10. 1. 1984 does not show that the court had taken cognizance suo-moto. It may pointed out that the notice under Rule 324 of the HIGH COURT OF RAJSTHAN be Rules 1952 was ordered to be issued to the contemner only after hearing counsel for the petitioner and it is evident that the learned Judges of the Division Bench did apply their mind before reaching to the conclusion that it was a fit case where notice should be issued to the non-petitioner contemner under Rule 324 of the High Court Rules. If it was the intention of the learned Judges to give show-cause notice for admission to the contemner then evidently the order should l;ave been to show cause why the contempt petition should not be admitted by this court. However, the order dated 10. 1. 1984 clearly says that notice be issued to the non-petitioner contemner. Learned counsel for the contemner has drawn our attention to the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Gula Abbash (1 ). The words used by this Court in the order were quite different than the one under consideration. Hence this case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. It is therefore, evident that after applying their mind, the learned Judges came to the conclusion that it was a fit case, in which suo-moto notice of contempt may be taken and on that account notice of contempt was issued to the non-petitioner contemner. It is thus clear that the Chief Justice of this Court had placed the matter before the specially constituted Division Bench of this court and it had taken cognizance of the same after hearing counsel for the petitioner. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no force in the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the contemner. ;