SUKH RAJ Vs. HEMRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a contempt of court matter arising out of a petition filed by one Sukhraj bringing to the notice of the Court a printed pamphlet Ex. 1 purporting to have been addressed by respondent No. 1 Hemraj and his father respondent No. 2 manchalal to Dr. Radhakrishnan, President of India, and certain copies thereof Exs. 2 and 3 addressed to Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri the late Prime Minister of India and ex. 4 to Shri Gulzarilal Nanda then Home Minister, Government of India and Ex. 5 addressed to the Collector Jalore, containing certain objectionable passages calculated to undermine the prestige of this High Court and impair the confidence of the public in the administration of justice by it. The proprietor and the printer of the press whereat this pamphlet was printed were also impleaded as respondents nos. 3 and 4 respectively. Thereafter notices were issued to the respondents to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of court in publishing and printing the pamphlet in question. When this case came up for hearing before us on the 25th November, 1965, the petitioner stated that he did not wish to press his application so far as respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were concerned, and, consequently, we ordered that the names of these respondents be struck out of the application. The case before us thus stands confined to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who are father and son. We may as well mention straightway that respondent No. 2 Manchalal contended that he had nothing to do with the authorship or the publication of the pamphlet in question and in this submission he was supported by respondent No. 1 Hemraj, his son, and it was pointed out that the expression occurring at the end of the pamphlet in question did not mean that Hemraj and manchalal were both authors of it but only that Hemraj son of Manchalal of Sagra was the author. In these circumstances, the case against Manchalal was not pressed before us, and, in our opinion, rightly, and we straightway dismiss it so far as he is concerned. The present application thus falls to be considered only with respect to Hemraj, respondent No. 1, and none of the other respondents and we shall hereafter refer to him as the respondent in this case.

(2.) THIS brings us to the contents of the objectionable pamphlet and the circumstances which have led to its publication.

(3.) IT so happened that a suit (being No. 34 of 1955} for possession of certain immovable property was filed by the respondent against one Heera Chand sawaimal in the court of the Civil Judge, Jalore. The petitioner appears to be a relation of the defendant in that suit. This suit was dismissed by the trial court. The respondent came in appeal (No. 43 of 1956) to this Court which was dismissed by a Division Bench (consisting of Bhandari and Beri JJ.) by its judgment dated the 17th September, 1963. The respondent then applied for special leave to the Supreme Court and he engaged Shri M. C. Setalvad, the former Attorney General of India to argue it before the Supreme Court, but that application was also dismissed on the 10th September. 1964. Having thus lost his case throughout, the respondent is alleged to have issued the printed pamphlet ex. 1 to the President of India. This does not bear any date but appears to have been sent to the President on the 25th January 1965. Ex. 2 appears to have been sent to the late Prime Minister of India on the 29th March, 1965, and Ex. 3 also addressed to the same quarter is dated 3rd April, 1965. Ex. 5 is addressed to the collector. Jalore, and is dated 27th March, 1965, while Ex. 4 addressed to Shri nanda the then Home Minister of the Government of India, is dated the 29th march, 1965.