STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. M SATYANARAYANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a contempt petition referred to us by the learned Single Judge of this Court as he found that the 1st respondent was guilty of Criminal Contempt.

(2.) The facts which related to initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents are given in detail in the order of reference, but certain facts need to be reproduced. It appears that one Sri P.Rama Subha Reddy is a Minister in the State Cabinet. He is an accused in a case being Sessions Case No.473 of 1993. This case was pending before the II-Additional Sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar. Some of the witnesses in that case filed an application in the High Court being Tr. Crl.M.P. No.2767 of 2002 seeking transfer of the case to any Court outside Mahaboobnagar District. The High Court ordered the transfer of the case from the file of the II-Additional Sessions Judge, Mahaboobnagar to the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. Thereafter a news item appeared in Eenadu Telugu Daily Newspaper on 14.9.2002 with a caption "Mantri Kosame Casu Badili" (Transfer of the case only for the convenience of the Minister). The attention of the learned Single Judge who had decided Tr.Crl.M.P. No. 2767 of 2002 was drawn to this news item by an Advocate Sri Ravi Shankar Jandhyala. The news item revealed that the 1st respondent-M Satyanarayana, P.C.C. President, Hyderabad in a press meet had stated that the case against the Minister Sri P.Rama Subba Reddy was transferred to Hyderabad from Mahaboobnagar only for his convenience. The learned Single Judge found that although there was an allegation against the Minister in the news item, but it was an insinuation against the Court, therefore he suo motu ordered initiation of contempt proceedings against three persons which included M. Satyanarayana Rao, P.C.C. President, Hyderabad, Editor and Publisher of Eenadu Daily Newspaper, Hyderabad and Reporter of Eenadu Telugu Daily Newspaper, Hyderabad.

(3.) After notices were issued, counter- affidavits were filed by Respondents 1 to 3 and the case was listed on 15.11.2002 before the learned Single Judge. On that day it was brought to his notice that two other newspapers i.e., Vaartha and Andhra Bhomi had also carried the same report. Notices were also issued to them and they were added as respondents 4 to 7. They also filed counter-affidavits before the learned Single Judge. All the respondents filed apologies before the learned Single Judge. The apologies of respondents 2, 4 and 6 were accepted without any reservations. The apologies of Respondents 3, 5 and 7 were accepted with a warning to be careful in future. The apology of 1st respondent was not accepted for the following reasons: