ABDUL JABBAR TAJ Vs. R K KARANJIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is requesting this Court to take action against the respondent under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The present litigation is an off-shoot of a prior litigation. The facts of that case are not relevant for deciding the present petition, but the background against which the present petition comes to be filed may be noted in brief.

(2.) The subject-matter of the present petition is an article written by the respondent R.K. Karanjia in his Weekly named "Blitz" in the issue, dated April 20, 1968. The complainant had filed a complaint against the respondent in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagpur, under Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code. On the last page 01 the cover page of the issue of Blitz, dated 5th of March 1966, a picture of one Pamela Tiffin appeared which was being styled as obscene by the complainant in his complaint. The respondent defended himself but the case ended in conviction on 28th September 1967. The respondent filed an appeal in the Court of Session and, by his judgment dated February 13, 1968, the learned Sessions Judge accepted the appeal and acquitted the respondent. It also appears that some move was made in the Parliament for amending the provisions of Section 292 of the Indian Penal Code and to have that offence tried by a Tribunal higher than the Judicial Magistrate, First Class. Those discussions were held in the Parliament in February and March of 1968.

(3.) Against this background and after the acquittal by the Sessions Judge, the respondent wrote the present article which is now being impugned. After the article was published in the issue, dated April 20, 1968, the complainant petitioner filed a criminal application on April 22, 1968 for permission to file an appeal under the provisions of Section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also moved this Court on April 25, 1968 by the present application. According to the petitioner, the article as a whole and more particularly some of the passages, which are quoted in the petition, are calculated to undermine the dignity and prestige of the judiciary. They are in the nature of an unjustified criticism against the trial Judge personally, as also against the entire lower judiciary. The petitioner, therefore, brings to the notice of this Court that a contempt has been committed by the respondent by publishing the said article and that appropriate action may be taken by this Court.