STATE OF AJMER Vs. TILOKCHAND GOPALDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Kishin Gurnard filed a complaint under Sections 500 and 501, Penal Code against Tilokchand Gopaldas. This complaint was heard and disposed of by Shri G. K. Bhagat, City Magistrate, First Class, Ajmer. On 28. 3. 52 Tilokchand Gopaldas was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- on each count. Tilokchand Gopaldas in his daily news paper 'hindu' of the date 1. 4. 1952 printed and published at Ajmer on 31. 3. 1952 published an article attacking the City Magistrate and making certain allegations against him. The City Magistrate submitted a report to the District Magistrate for a reference to this Court so that action may be taken under Section 3 of Central Act 32 of 1952. The District Magistrate forwarded this report to this Court. Criminal (Misc.) Appln. No. 17 of 1952 was filed on 12. 4. 1952 by Kishan Gurnani praying that action against Tilok Chand Gopaldas be taken under Section 228, Penal Code arid also such other action as may be considered suitable by this Court. Notice was issued to the respondent and arguments were heard by my learned predecessor on 3. 10. 1952. By his order, dated 30. 10. 1952, my learned predecessor discharged the notice. Now the State of Ajmer has filed this application under Article 134 (1) (c) for leave to appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this application I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

(2.) THE learned Public Prosecutor has referred to my learned predecessor's order dated 30. 10. 1952 and urges that Tilokchand Gopaldas did not offer an unqualified apology, but his learned Counsel gave to the Court what was a mixture of justification and an expression of regret. The learned Public Prosecutor urges that in the circumstances, this Court should not have treated the qualified apology as an unqualified one and should have convicted and sentenced Tilokchand Gopaldas. That question cannot be considered by me at this stage. This application is not one for review of my learned predecessor's orders but merely for a certificate that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(3.) THE learned Public Prosecutor has urged that the question involved is that of the honour and integrity of the judiciary as a whole and this question is one of great public importance and, as such, the certificate should be granted. The learned Public Prosecutor has referred me to State v. Raj Kumar Singh AIR 1953 Madh B 35 (A)'. In this case it was held: To justify a grant of leave to appeal under Article 134 (1) (c) there must at least be a substantial question of law or a disregard of the forms of legal process or some violation of the principles of natural justice, or otherwise substantial or grave injustice must have been done, or it should be a matter of great public importance. The learned Public Prosecutor urges that leave should be granted if the matter involves a question of great public importance. I do licit disagree. The question, however, is whether the questions raised in the present application ate matters of great public importance.