ARVIND SHRIDHAR GHATPANDE Vs. BAL THACKERAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this Contempt Petition against the respondents who are the Editor, and the Printer and Publisher of the daily Marathi newspaper "Saamna" on the ground that by publishing a news item dated 22.10.1996 in the said newspaper in its Pune issue, the respondents have committed contempt of this Court. The English rendering of the said news item has been annexed at exh.'B' to this petition.

(2.) THIS petition was filed in this Court on 18th December 1996. The petitioner, however, did not take steps to bring the matter before the Court for initiating action under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. There were also some office objections. The office had informed the party in person earlier by letter dated 21.3.1998 and, thereafter; by letter sent under registered post A/D on 23.3.1998, to remove the objections in the matter. Thereafter, the matter was, for the first time, placed for orders before the Division Bench of this Court on 20th April 1998 and the Division Bench issued direction to keep it for admission on 27.4.1998 to inform the party-in-person immediately. Accordingly, the office had informed the party-in-person by letter sent under registered post A/D. on 22nd April, 1998. The matter again appeared on board on 27th April 1998. As the acknowledgment was not received, it was adjourned to after summer vacation. The matter was thereafter placed before this Bench on 10th June 1998 for orders as the petitioner had not removed objections though intimation was duly received by him. On 10th June 1998 this Bench directed the petitioner to remove office objections within four weeks. Thereafter, the petitioner seems to have removed the objections and sent a letter to extend the date for admission due to his illness. Accordingly, on 8th July, 1998 the matter was adjourned to 17th August 1998. Even today the petitioner is absent nor is he represented by an Advocate. We, therefore, perused the petition and heard Mrs.Tahilramani, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.

(3.) SECONDLY , Mrs.Tahilramani submitted that similar petition for contempt against these very respondents on the basis of the very news item was filed before the Nagpur Bench of this Court being Criminal Contempt Petition No.12 of 1996 with Criminal Contempt Petition No.13 of 1996 in which the Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur held the respondents No.1 and 2 guilty under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentenced them to imprisonment for a period of one week and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Mrs.Tahilramani stated that the fine amount had already been deposited pursuant to the said order. She, therefore, submits that the respondents cannot be subjected to double jeopardy on the same allegations.