LAWS(MPH)-1993-10-21

JINENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE OF MP

Decided On October 27, 1993
JINENDRA KUMAR JAIN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MP Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a case in which this Court took cognizance of contempt of a subordinate Court without any reference or motion, acting suo motu. A report appeared in a weekly newspaper called 'Amar Jagat' published from Morena and also Agra in its issue dated 17th May, 1993. A copy of that newspaper was received by post at Gwalior Bench of the High Court and was placed by the Registry for perusal. The report was to the following effect: - .........[vernacular ommited text]...........

(2.) THERE was no reference from District Judge, Morena nor any motion by Advocate General, which are the two usual modes in which cognizance of contempt of subordinate Court may be taken by the High Court, vide Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the Act). Section 15(2) of the Act may be reproduced :

(3.) THERE is no doubt that the newspaper report in question was highly contemptuous. The allegation made in the report was that the District Judge, Morena Shri P. C. Agarwal, had swallowed a fat sum of money from one Dwarkaprasad and decided the case against the other party Nemichand Jain in a litigation of his Court. Of late, yellow journalism, particularly at small district places, has been indulging in acts of blackmail and intimidation upon officials of various Government departments and now not sparing even the members of the subordinate judiciary. Such newspapers have little income from journalism. Their raison d'etre is such false reports and when such reports are published particular care is taken to see that copies of the newspaper reach the hands of the official defamed and also his superior authorities. Coming back to the question of mode of taking cognizance, the point needing consideration is, does omission in Section 15(2) about the mode of taking suo motu cognizance, indicate a legislative intention to debar the High Court from taking cognizance in that mode of any contempt of a subordinate court?