STATE Vs. RAJESHWARI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the 11th June 1965, Sri S. N. Sharma, the then Judicial Officer (City) Kanpur, made a report to the Registrar of this Court, through the proper channel, that the three Annexures marked A, B and C sent along with that report be brought to the notice of this Court, and that suitable action might be taken against Rajeshwar Prasad Saxena, the opposite party under Section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act, In this report Sri S. N. Sharma stated that the matters contained in the enclosed Annexures appeared in "kali Raten"-a Hindi Weekly-dated the 8th May 1965, and as they attributed improper motive to the Presiding Officer of the Court, and were calculated to scandalize the Court and to lower its prestige and dignity, and to bring the administration of justice into disrepute, the opposite party, who was responsible for their publication, be punished for committing contempt of Court. The passage to which objection was taken read thus: On the 12th of August, due to special efforts of Sri Daya Shankar Mehrotra, who besides being an official receiver has attained a high status on account of his unparalleled resources, Sri S. N. Sharma issued bailable and non-bailable warrants against Sri Fazal-ul-Haq and his brother without any legal basis. It has been learnt that on the next day some Magistrate complained to the Collector that a Magistrate of another circle could not have the power to grant bail to a person of his circle. Accordingly he cancelled the bail, which had been granted, on that very day. Just think is it the shriek of law or persistent inimical spirit. Even then if persons determined to pull out the tongue of speakers and to handcuff the writers continue to get back of his Shastri Government, the democratic set up of this country shall dwindle. There are instances to show that on account of personal grudge the cousin of Mr. Fazal-ul-Haq, who is said to be a resident of Tilaknagar, was got arrested by a Magistrate of Kanpur City on such serious charges, as would make the hearts of the readers cry out when they come to hear their details. In this case the most interesting fact is that in order to bring Sri Fazal-ul-Haq in the clutches of law, a woman of loose character was made the target and such a false case was got instituted by the said Magistrate, on the knowledge of which even the walls of the Court echo with the cry of 'shame, shame'. It has been learnt that the said lady moved an application in the Court of the District and Sessions Judge for withdrawing the case, in which serious charges were brought against Sri S. N. Sharma on behalf of Sri Fazal-ul-Haq. Its confidential enquiry is necessary.

(2.) ON this report notice was issued to the opposite party by Gyanendra Kumar, J. , and in response to it he has appeared in person, and filed a counter-affidavit accepting responsibility for the publication of the impugned passages, but denying that they constituted contempt of Court on the grounds (l) that the matters contained therein were correct, (2) that they were published in the exercise of his right of fair criticism and in the public good with a view to obtaining redress thereof.

(3.) ON behalf of Sri Rajeshwar Prasad Saxena a preliminary objection was taken to the maintainability of the present proceedings. According to Sri Saxena as the impugned remarks were not made in, or in connection with any pending case, no contempt of Court can be held to have been committed by him. This, objection has however only to be stated to be rejected for the purpose of contempt proceedings is to safeguard the dignity of the Court and the administration of justice, for which it is not necessary that some case should be pending. Hence if the impugned passages are of the kind mentioned in the report, then they can form the basis of contempt proceedings, even if they were not made, in or in connection with any case.