PERSPECTIVE PUBLICATIONS P LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the judgment of the Bombay High Court passed in exercise of ordinary original civil jurisdiction by which the appellants were found guilty of having committed contempt of Mr.Justice Tarkunde in his judicial capacity and of the Court. Appellant No.2 D. R. Goel, who is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of Perspective Publications (P) Ltd.,-appellant No. 1, was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month together with fine amount ing to Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine he was to undergo further simple imprisonment for the same period. The appellants were also directed to pay the costs incurred by the State. On behalf of the first appellant it has been stated at the bar that the appeal is not being pressed.

(2.) The background in which the impugned article was published on April 24, 1965, in a weekly periodical called "Mainstream" which is a publication brought out by the first appellant may be set out. In the year 1960 a suit was filed by one Krishnaraj Thackersey against the weekly newspaper "Blitz" and its Editor and others claiming Rs. 3 lacs as damages for libel. The hearing in that suit commenced on the original side of the Bombay High Court on June 24, 1964 The delivery of the judgment commenced on January 19, 1965 and continued till February 12, 1965. After the June 24, 1964, that suit was heard from day to day by Mr. Justice Tar. kunde. The suit was decreed in the sum of Rs. 3 lacs. An appeal is pending before a Division Bench of the High Court against that judgment

(3.) The impugned article is stated to have been contributed by a person under the name of "Scribbler" but appellant No. 2 has taken full responsibility for its publication. Its heading was "Story of a Loan and Blitz Thackersey Libel Case". It is unnecessary to reproduce the whole article which appears verbatim in the judgment of the High Court. The article has been ingeniously and cleverly worded. The salient matters mentioned in that article are these: After paying a tribute to the Indian judiciary the writer says that according to the report in "Prajatantra" a Gujarati paper, architects Khare-Tarkunde Private Limited of Nagpur, hereinafter called "Khare Tarkunde" (which is described a Firm in the article) got a loan facility of Rs. 10 lacs from the Bank of India on December 7, 1964. The partners of Khare-Tarkunde included the father, two brothers and some other relations of Justice Tarkunde who awarded a decree for Rs. 3 lacs as damages against Blitz and in favour of Thackersey. It is pointed out that the date on which Rs. 10 lacs loan facility was granted by the Bank of India was about five and a half months after the Thackersey-Blitz libel suit had begun and just over six weeks before Justice Tarkunde began delivering his "marathon judgment" on January 19, 1965. It is then said that for Rs. 10 lacs loan facility granted to Khare-Tarkunde, the New India Assurance Co. stood guarantee and that the two Directors of the Bank of India who voted in favour of the credit of Rs. 10 lacs being granted to Khare-Tarkunde were Thackersey and Jaisinh Vithaldas (believed to be a relative of Thackersey). Next it is stated that one of the Directors of the New India Assurance that stood guarantee for the loan facility was N. K Petigara, who was also a senior partner of M/s. Mulla and Mulla Craigie Blunt and Caroe, Solicitors of Thackersey in the Blitz Thackersey Libel Case before Justice Tarkunde. Emphasis is laid on the fact that Khare-Tarkunde had a capital of Rs. 5 lacs only and the balance sheet of the firm of June 1964 revealed indebtedness to various financiers to the tune of Rs. 14 lacs. Thus Khare-Tarkunde is stated to be "lucky to get against all this a handsome loan of Rs. 10 lacs from the Bank of India". The writer refers to the Code among college teachers and university professors of not examining papers when their own children end near relatives sit for examination and adds that Justice Tarkunde himself will recognize the rightness of such a Code. Referring to the unimpeachable integrity and reputation of judges of the Bombay High Court, the writer proceeds to say "there must not be allowed to be raised even the faintest whisper of any missing on that score." Paragraph 24 deserves to be produced :-