STAE Vs. SRI M.S. RAVI, THE PARTNER,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Contempt of Court proceeding was taken suo motu by the High Court under Sections 2(c) and 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Rule 7 of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1988. It is initiated, against the publication of an editorial by the Kerala Kaumudi daily on 18.12.2008, concerning the applications for bail pending before this Court at the relevant time, filed by the accused in a case known as Abhaya case. The respondents are the Printer and Publisher and Editors of the said daily. The said editorial contains certain allegations against the learned Judge hearing the bail applications and also against the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice of this Court. It was stated that the learned Judge was suspected to be under the influence of persons allegedly interested in the accused and the application of the C.B.I for posting the bail applications before another Bench was rejected by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice on communal grounds.

(2.) THE information regarding the publication of the above editorial was placed before the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice on the administrative side under Rule 7(i) of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice designated another learned Judge of this Court to take action in the matter. The learned Judge on finding that the publication of the editorial will, prima facie, amount to commission of criminal contempt of court, as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), ordered to place the information for preliminary hearing before the Bench dealing with contempt matters as per the roster. Before placing the matter before the Bench, copies of the relevant papers concerning the suo motu proceedings were furnished to the learned Advocate General of the State under Rule 8A of the Rules. Thereafter, the case was listed before us for hearing on 15.1.2009 under Rule 9(i) of the Rules. Notice to the respondents would be issued, if only the Bench is also satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out, after preliminary hearing. At the stage of preliminary hearing, the learned Advocate General alone is before the Court to argue the matter.

(3.) THE learned Advocate General also brought to our notice the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Regina v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Ex parte Blackburn (No. 2), (1968) 2 W.L.R. 1204. The relevant portion of the said judgment rendered by Lord Denning reads as follows: