MOHAMMED YAMIN Vs. OM PRAKASH BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A notice to show cause under section 15 read with s. 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was given to Shri Om Prakash Bansal, an Editor, Printer and Publisher of the weekly newspaper "prasant Jyoti" for the news item published in the said paper dated 30th March, 1981. In the opinion of the court, the news item as a whole was prima facei contemptuous of this court and of the subordinate courts. This news item scandalised the former judges and the present judges of the High Court Rajasthan. It also scandalises 32 judicial officers mentioned in the said news item. The District Judge, Jaipur City, the District Judge, Jaipur District, the Additional District Judge of Court No. 4, 6 and 7 had made reference to this court complaining that the publication of the aforesaid news item constituted criminal contempt of Court. It was further mentioned that in the show cause notice that the portions marked A to B. C to D, E to F, and G to H were in our opinion prima facie sufficient to take cognizance of the Criminal contempt committed by Shri Om Prakash Bansal. Thus taking cognizance of criminal contempt committed by Shri O. P. Bansal. a direction was given to issue a notice to Shri O. P. Bansal as to why he should not be published for the contempt of this Court and the subordinate courts Copies of the references made by the subordinate court, copies of the news item published in 'prasant Jyoti' dated 30th March, 1981, and copies of the portions marked A to B, C to D, E to F, and G to H were sent to the contemner Shri O. P. Bansal. In compliance to the show cause notice Shri Bansal appeared in this Court and filed a written reply. Arguments in this case were heard on 14th and 15th May, 1981. Shri Bhagirath Singh Shekhawat Advocate, appearing on behalf of the contemner closed his arguments on 15th May 1981 and at the close of arguments submitted an application praying that he may be given an opportunity to summon certain record and to produce witnesses Arguments were heard on this application also and it was ordered that the application shall be decided along with the main order. At this stage Shri O. P. Bansal also moved an application praying to stay the contempt proceedings so that he may obtain transfer order from the Supreme Court. This application was dismissed by us on the same day.

(2.) BEFORE dealing with the merits of the case we deem it necessary to reproduce the news item as a whole published in 'prasant Jyoti' dated 30th March, 1981 with portions marked A to B, C to D, E to F, and G to H : ***

(3.) IT was next contended by the learned counsel for contemner that the news item in question could only amount to defamation of the judges named in it and the proper course could have been of taking defamatory proceedings against the non-petitioner and not the proceeding for contempt of court. IT is contended that the offence of defamation under the Indian Penal Code was punishable with a higher penalty than the contempt of Court and in case the non-petitioner had committed any offence of defamation he is ready to face the higher penalty. IT is further argued that the proceedings for contempt of court are of summary nature and the non-petitioner has been put to a disadvantage and in case proceedings for defamation are launched against him he would be able to bring forth the oral and documentary evidence to show the correctness and the truthfulness of the allegations published in the news item. There is a difference between the law of libel and contempt of court.