PRAFUL B DESAI Vs. P C SINGHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition u/s 10 r/w section 12 and 15 of the Contempt of Court's Act, 1971 the petitioner has prayed for punishing respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that they have committed contempt of Court. The petition is filed after obtaining requisite consent of the Advocate General. The facts leading to the filing of this petition are in brief as under :

(2.) RESPONDENT No.1 is a retired I.A.S Officer of Rajasthan cadre. The deceased Leela who was suffering from cancer was his wife. She was taken to U.S.A for treatment. According to respondent No.1, the Doctors in U.S.A. opined that she was not fit for undergoing the surgery. It appears that after returning to India, Mrs.Leela developed bleeding and she was admitted in Bombay Hospital for treatment in December, 1987. The petitioner is a Doctor attached to the said Hospital and according to respondent No.1 his wife was admitted in the hospital as the patient of the petitioner. The petitioner is said to have advised surgery. After preliminary exploratory laparotomy carried on the advice of petitioner, by one Dr.Mukherjee, it was found that the surgery was not possible. It is alleged that the petitioner even refused to come to see the condition of Mrs.Leela after her abdomen was opened. Dr.Mukherjee therefore closed the abdomen of the patient. According to respondent No.1 his wife Leela subsequently suffered very much and died a few months later. According to him, both the Doctors, that is, petitioner and Dr.Mukherjee acted in a rash and negligent manner in their treatment to Mrs.Leela.

(3.) THE alleged contempt arises out of publication of interview of respondent No.1 by respondent No.2 in the magazine called "Health and Nutrition". Respondent No.2 is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of the said magazine. The interview of respondent No.1 was published in September, 1996 issue of the said magazine under the caption of "A Slice of Life". According to the petitioner, the offending portion of the said interview which constitutes contempt appears on Pages 57 to 61 wherein respondent No.1 is alleged to have made open comments on the merits of the said case against the petitioner in minutest details and endeavoured his utmost to spell out the petitions' guilt. In the said interview, respondent No.1 has also set out his conditions for the settlement of the criminal case which include apology by the petitioner to the people of this country as well as to his co-accused Dr.A.K.Mukherjee, who according to respondent No.1 was made a scape goat by the petitioner. The further condition cited in the said interview is requiring the petitioner to donate to Charity certain amount together with interest as claimed by respondent No.1 in the Civil Suit filed by him against petitioner. The petitioner has submitted that the interview as given by respondent No.1 and published by respondent No.2 in connection with the pending case has a clear tendency to prejudice the public and the witnesses who are expected to depose in the said case as well as the Court which will hear the case against the petitioner. It is contended that comments on the merits of the pending criminal case where chargesheet is already filed, seriously prejudice or interfere or tend to interfere with due course of judicial proceedings. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the impugned publication of the interview of respondent No.1 amounts to clear contempt of court.