Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shiv Shankar Bansal, Advocate And Anr. vs Hakim Singh, T.I. And Ors. on 6 September, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(2)ALT(CRI)6, 2003(2)MPHT531
ORDER Fakhruddin, J.
1. Briefly stated facts are that one Ashok alias Chhetake Jamdar was arrested under Sections 393, 341, 336 and 506B, IPC and Section 25-B of the Arms Act by the police. He was produced before the Magistrate. The application for police remand was made on the ground that the accused is absconder and is involved in tripple murders. The police remand was refused. Judicial Magistrate First Class, however, directed that if the judicial remand is required then application be filed. It is submitted that the judicial remand was not applied for and the accused was discharged by Judicial Magistrate First Class. The manner in which the accused was discharged by JMFC was reported to the police authorities and the District Magistrate. Certain Sanha entries were made and on that basis news were published in the newspapers. The applicants have annexed the press reports and the press clippings are marked as Annexures A-1, A-2 and A-3, and are from daily newspapers Navprabhat, Aacharan and Swadesh respectively.
2. The applicants filed this petition on the ground that Hakim Singh, T.I., Police Station, Madho Ganj, Lashkar, respondent No. 1 and Editors respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 undermined the dignity of the Court and had committed contempt. The action is prayed for.
3. On 30-3-1988, the matter came up before this Court and the show-cause notices were directed to be issued to the respondents. The report of JMFC, Gwalior, was also called for. Learned JMFC submitted his comments on 26-4-88, wherein it is stated that police remand was sought, which was refused and judicial order was passed.
4. The matter remained pending. Respondent No. 1 has filed return. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have also filed their returns.
5. Shri Bharadwaj, Counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the publication, which has been made in the different newspapers, constitutes contempt and proceedings be not withdrawn. Shri Bharadwaj in support of his contention has relied on the decision in the matter of Basudeva Prasad, Advocate (AIR 1961 Patna 437), Abdul Jabbar v. R.K. Kamnjia (AIR 1970 Bombay 48); Naraindas v. Govt. of M.P. (AIR 1974 SC 1252); S.P Agrawal v. R.R. Upadhya (1978 Cr.LJ 789); Re: Ananddhar Diwan (1982 JLJ SN 588), and P.N. Duda v. P. Shiv Shankar (AIR 1988 SC 1208).
6. Shri Bharadwaj, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the reporting should not be done in a manner so as to create sensation nor in a way so as to scandalise the Court. He contended that Judges have no spokesperson. Proceedings in the Court are normally in the open Court unless specially directed to be held in Camera. The orders are dictated in the open Court followed by typed written orders. Therefore, reporting of the proceedings/orders/judgments of the Court should not only be accurate and correct but also fair. In this connection it was argued by him that in number of criminal cases, acquittals are recorded for various reasons viz., non-production of evidence by prosecution, prosecution evidence having been not believed by the Court etc., and the Courts in their orders/judgments assign reasons for acquittal. But at times, such acquittals are reported in the newspapers in a manner and in the language and in particular with such sensational headlines so as to give an impression that a hardened criminal has been let off by the Court which reporting causes more harm than good. It is in this context he submitted that reporting has to be fair, correct and accurate so that it does not mislead public at large and does not give rise to any misgivings about functioning of the Court.
7. So far as the news (Annexure A-3) published in daily newspaper Swadesh is concerned, it recites that the accused, arrested after 14 years, has been discharged by the Court, Similar is the news (Annexure A-2) published in daily newspaper Dainik Aacharan. The reading of the same does not show that publication made as such is warranting for any action. Therefore, so far as the publication of news (Annexures A-2 and A-3) is concerned, we do not find any material against their Editors. They have submitted unqualified apology. They have also stated that the news was flashed by the Police Control Room.
8. So far as publication of Annexure A-1 by the Editor of daily Navprabhat is concerned, return has been filed by the Editor and Editor has submitted his unqualified apology and stated that news was flashed by the Control Room.
9. Learned Counsel Shri Jitendra Maheshwari appearing for respondent No. 2 Editor Dainik Navprabhat reiterated apology before the Court for publishing the news as per Annexure A-1 and has stated that his client has highest regard for the Court. The respondent No. 2 also apologised.
10. So far as respondent No. 1 is concerned, Shri R.D. Jain, Senior Counsel has submitted return stating therein that the respondent has highest regard for the Court and has apologised. Respondent No. 1 himself has also submitted unqualified apology in the Court. The apology appears to be sincere.
11. Shri Jain in support of his contention has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, (1995) 1 SCC 421 and Khushi Ram v. Hon'ble High Court, Punjab & Haryana (AIR 1992 SC 2203). Shri Jain submitted that the matter regarding Contempt of Court is between the Court and the contemners. Shri Jain has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Om Prakash Jaiswal v. D.K. Mittal and Anr., (2000) 3 SCC 171. The relevant is as under :--
"17. A private party or a litigant may also invite the attention of the Court to such facts as may persuade the Court in initiating proceedings for contempt. However, such person filing an application or petition before the court does not become a complainant or petitioner in the proceedings. He is just an informer or relator. His duty ends with the facts being brought to the notice of the Court. It is thereafter for the Court to act on such information or not act though the private party or litigant moving the Court may at the discretion of the Court continue to render its assistance during the course of proceedings. That is why it has been held that an informant does not have a right of filing an appeal under Section 19 of the Act against an order refusing to initiate the contempt proceedings or disposing of the application or petition filed for initiating such proceedings. He cannot be called an aggrieved party."
In that view of the matter, we have considered these proceedings. We asked learned Counsel Shri V.K. Bhardwaj for the applicant and also applicant Shri S.S. Bansal, who too argued, as to whether any one of them was present at the time of incident and rather aware of the facts. In reply, they stated that none of them was present.
12. Shri Jain, Sr. Advocate appearing for respondent No. 1 and Shri Jitendra Maheshwari, Advocate appearing for respondent No. 2 submitted that they shared views of Shri Bharadwaj, learned Counsel for the applicant so far as reporting is concerned.
13. We have given our anxious consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case. We have also gone through the Revision No. 50/88/Cri. Rev. preferred by the State before the Sessions Judge, Gwalior, which was disposed of on 3-5-1988. It has been noted from the facts and grounds in the revision that the prosecution has come out on its own version. In this case respondent No. 5 State of M.P. through Collector, Gwalior and respondent No. 6 Advocate General of M.P. High Court, Jabalpur, have been deleted by this Court vide order dated 15-3-2000.
14. Taking into consideration the special facts and circumstances of the case and material on record and further that the incident is of the year 1988 and 12 years have elapsed, in our opinion, the apology tendered by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being unqualified and appearing to be sincere, is accepted in the ends of justice. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall, however get the same published in the newspaper.
15. Having thus considered the entire facts and circumstances and the material brought on record, no case is made out against respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and the proceedings initiated against them are dropped. So far as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, their unqualified and sincere apology is accepted. The respondents are warned to be careful in future and not to give any further opportunity for initiating such contempt proceedings against them.
16. Before parting, we would like to observe that utmost caution and care has to be taken by the persons concerned in the reporting and publication of news in the matter of Court proceedings and orders. The reporting of the judicial proceedings, orders and judgment and its publication has to be fair and accurate. A duty is, therefore, cast on the persons responsibles that they must first get acquainted with the correct facts of the judicial proceedings before they publish it and the publication has to be as it is without trend and mixture so as not to jeopardise the judicial institution which is one of the fabrics of democracy.
17. In view of what has been stated above, case is disposed of.
18. Casts as incurred.
19. Photocopy to the parties for compliance.
20. Certified copy as per rules.