BALIA, J. - (1.)IN newspaper ``lok Sammat'' published from Sri Ganganagar dated 24. 2. 2001, the following Headline was published. ***
(2.)UNDER the detailed report dated 24. 2. 2001, it was stated firstly that addressing hundreds of workers assembled in front of Collectorate, Sriganganagar, the leaders of communist Party levelled sharp allegations against judiciary. Incriminating statements were attributed to Het Ram Beniwal, Navrang Choudhary, Bhuramal Swami, Advocate, Hardeep Singh and Sheopat Singh. Following statements were attributed to the respective speakers: ***
The petitioner Raghuveer Singh considering that aforesaid statement reported in ``lok Sammat'' scandalized and lowered the authority of the Court and tended to scandalize the Court and tended to lower the authority of the Court by creating apprehension in the minds of people regarding integrity, ability and fairness of the Court in administering the laws and justice as well as affecting fair trial of a pending casein the courts below has resulted in criminal contempt of Court. He therefore, moved the learned Advocate General seeking his sanction for moving motion of contempt before this Court. The learned Advocate General of the State of Rajasthan vide his letter dtd. 16. 1. 2002 considered the application and gave his consent in writing to file contempt petition against the non applicants.

The non-applicant No. 1 Shiv Kumar Swami is the editor of the newspaper ``lok Sammat'', Sri Ganganagar. Respondents No. 2 to 6 are other persons who were reported to have made aforesaid statements while addressing gathering in front of the Collectorate on 23. 2. 2001.

In pursuance of aforesaid sanction, this application was moved before this Court on 19. 1. 2002. On 30. 1. 2002, notices were issued to the respondents to show cause as to why this contempt petition be not admitted and allowed.

For the precise, allegation on which the contempt proceedings are founded and in respect of which the sanction was accordance by the learned Advocate General reads as under:- ***

(3.)IN response to the show cause notices, firstly a joint reply was submitted by the non-petitioner No. 2 to 6, namely, Het Ram Beniwal, Navrang Choudhary, Advocate, Bhuramal Swami, Advocate, Hardeep Singh, Sarpanch and Sheopat Singh. Apart from alleging oblique motive on the part of the petitioner to move the present application, the respondents No. 2 to 6 in their defence denied making of any such statement as referred in the application and as reported in ``lok Sammat'' and took a stand that whatever stated in the news-item is faise. However, the conduct of meeting at Collectorate, Sri Ganganagar on 23. 2. 2001 was not denied.
In support of reply, separate affidavits were filed by Het Ram Beniwal, Navrang Choudhary, Advocate, Bhuramal Swami, Advocate, Hardeep Singh, Sarpanch and Sheopat Singh denying that they made the statement attributed to them in the newspaper by quoting the statement attributed to them.

After reply was submitted by the respondents No. 2 to 6, an application was moved on 26. 4. 2002 on behalf of the respondent No. 1 Editor of ``dainik Bhasker'' in D. B. Cr. Contempt Petition No. 1/2002 which also arose out of the statements made by Shri Sheopat Singh and Shri Bhuramal Swami in the same meeting held in front of Collectorate, Sriganganagar on 23. 2. 2001, and in respect of which another contempt petition No. 1/2002 was preferred after obtaining permission of learned Advocate General by the same petitioner, and facts are integrally connected, asserting that the answering respondent has correctly reported the incident which took place as such and the answering respondent had no ill motive or intention to malign the judiciary.