PRAVIN K SINGHAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By our judgment dated July 12, 1988, P.K. Singhal, the contemner, was found guiltily of criminal contempt within meaning of section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-. The contemner had remained absent, inspite of bailable warrant being served upon him, and a day prior to the date of hearing appeared in the Court and informed us that he is not going to remain present. The contempt held proved is in respect of pamphlet issued by the contemner in which false and serious allegations are made to scandalize judicial administration in City of Bombay. The character and integrity of the sitting Judges are assailed in roud language and even the chief Justice of India is not spared.

(2.) In accordance with our judgment, the contemner was taken in custody on July 19, 1988. Before the contemner was taken in custody, the contemner did not think it fit to make application that the sentence should be suspended. Yesterday, the present application was moved on behalf of the contemner and it is claimed that the contemner is desirous of preferring appeal to the Honble Supreme Court, and therefore, the sentence should be suspended for a period of four weeks and the contemner should be released on bail. The application is resisted on behalf of the Bar Council and Shri Gurusahani invited our attention to a fresh pamphlet issued by the contemner on July 15, 1988. In this pamphlet again allegations are made to scandalize the judicial administration and allegations are also hurled against this Bench. Shri Gurusahani submitted that the conduct and action of the contemner in issuing this circular even after he was punished on July 12, 1988 indicates that the contemner has no respect for the Courts and does not care for the sentence imposed. Shri Gurusahani submitted that this later circular is also contemptuous of the Courts and the Judges and in these circumstances the relief sought by the contemner should not be granted. We inquired from Shri Dalvi, learned Counsel appearing for the contemner, as, whether the contemner is the author of this subsequent pamphlet dated July 15, 1988 and Shri Dalvi, after taking instructions, stated that the contemner is the author. Shri Gurusahani pointed out that this pamphlet was also widely distributed in the Bar Rooms by the contemner.

(3.) Shri Dalvi submitted that the contemner may be right in publishing the pamphlet in respect of which he was held guilty, and the contemner is entitled to file appeal before the Supreme Court as a matter of right. Referring to sub-section (3) of section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, Shri Dalvi submitted that as soon as the contemner stated that he desires to file appeal, the High Court is duty bound to suspend the punishment and release the contemner on bail. We are unable to accede to the submission of the learned Counsel. The satisfaction of the High Court is not merely restricted to the enquiry as to whether the contemner is going to file an appeal before the Supreme Court and it is always open for the High Court to examine whether the punishment should be suspended on the facts and circumstances of the case. The mere fact that appeal lies to the Supreme Court as of right cannot lead to the conclusion that the suspension of punishment and release on bail are also matter of right. Shri Dalvi then submitted that refusal to grant prayer made by him amounts to High court acting vindictively against the contemner. In our judgment, the submission is not only devoid of merit but shows complete lack of understanding of the attitude of High Court. The High Court never acts vindictively and such an accusation cannot be levelled merely because the contemner fails to get the relief which he is demanding. In our judgment, looking to the conduct of the contemner in publishing the pamphlet abusing the Judges and abusing and scandalizing the Courts, Judges and Members of the Bar and persisting with that attitude even after the Bar Council has conducted inquiry and found allegations baseless and thereafter remaining absent when the contempt petition was heard before us and then issuing fresh pamphlet again condemning the courts and Judges, clearly reveals that the contemner is not repenting for what he has done and shows utter disregard for the judicial administration. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to grant relief sought by the contemner.