PRABHAKAR LAXMAN MOKASHI Vs. SADANAND TRIMBAK YARDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises out of a reference made by the Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate, 3rd Court, Esplanade, Bombay. This petition is also an offshoot of what is known as the Vikhroli riot case. Another petition asking the High Court to take action in contempt against some other respondents was disposed of by us by upholding a technical objection to the maintainability of that application. In this application also another technical objection is raised by respondents who made speeches which are styled as amounting to contempt of Court.

(2.) IN order to understand the immunity which is being claimed under Sub -section (2) of Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act 70 of 1971), (which will be hereafter referred to as the 'Act'), the facts may be very briefly noted. After a riot took place in Vikhroli on September 2, 1972 in what is known as the creek site Colony of the Godrej and Boyee Co. Ltd., several persona came to be arrested on suspicion of being involved in the crime. They were produced before the Presidency Magistrate on September 4, 1972 and police custody remands were obtained, A large number of them applied for bail but the bail application was rejected in respect of 19 persons by September 20, 1972. Some of the accused persons whose bails were rejected are Dr. Datta Samant, Dina Bama Patil, Fredrik Parera, Anant Desai and Krishna Ramchandra Joshi. Some of these persons seem to be labour leaders. On September 26, 1972, a Samiti called 'The Kamgar Aikya Vardhak Samiti' was formed which included amongst its members present respondents Nos. 1 and 2 namely, Yardi and Chavan. Mr. Yardi happens to be the General Secretary of the Godrej and Boyce Workers Union. This Samiti got printed certain leaflets and one such is produced at exh. A along with the present petition. After getting them printed by about September 28, 1972 permission was sought from the police for the use of loud speaker at a meeting. That permission was granted and a meeting was held in Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli in the evening of October 1, 1972. In this meeting not only those leaflets were distributed but many speeches were made by several speakers. Both the present respondents were speakers in that meeting.

(3.) IN this application Mr. Mokashi reproduced some relevant portions of the speeches of the two respondents and also attached the text of those speeches with English translation to his petition. Having referred to the above mentioned history of the riot case and having pointed out the objectionable portion of the speeches, Mr. Mokashi alleged that these speeches are in the nature of contempt of Court and action seems to be necessary against the respondents.