THE STATE Vs. JANARDAN PRASAD SINGH AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two contemners against whom rule of contempt has been issued by order dated 30.4.85, are respectively the Editor and Publisher of a weekly newspaper 'Priya Prabhat' published from Bhagalpur. The act of contempt is the publication of a news item in the issue of the said paper dated 28th December, 1984. The matter had been brought to the notice of this Court on the note of the First Assistant Registrar dated the 20th March, 1985, which was put up before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice by the Registrar of this Court stating that the news item which I shall presently indicate was "clearly motivated and tended to scandalize the authority of the Court and to interfere and obstruct the administration of justice". He suggested for placing the matter on the judicial side of the Court for consideration if action under the provision of the Contempt of Courts Act was necessary against the contemners. On that note of the Registrar, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice ordered for putting up the matter before me on the judicial side and accordingly when the matter was put up, by order dated the 30th April, 1985, a rule of contempt was issued and the contemners were called upon to show cause as to why they should not be punished for the act of contempt by publishing the said new item. The contumacious news item reads as follows:

(2.) I had gone to Bhagalpur as the Inspecting Judge of that Judgeship for the annual inspection from the 9th to 13th of November, 1984. The District Judge of Bhagalpur is Mr. Md. Yunus Ansari, who took over the charge from his predecessor Shri Ranjit Lal Bhagat on the 12th September, 1983. Towards the end of the term of Sri Bhagat at Bhagalpur, some allegation petitions and adverse reports were received by the High Court. There had also been a strike of the Civil Courts staff of Bhagalpur during his regime. Some of the allegation petitions against Sri Bhagat were also entrusted to me for investigation and inquiry while I had gone to Bhagalpur for inspection.

(3.) Although in the present publication in question the name of the High Court Judge is not mentioned, on the facts and circumstances mentioned above. It is obvious that it relates to me and my inspection on work of the Civil Courts at Bhagalpur.