Court on its own Motion vs Madan Lal Bhasin Rana

R.N. Mittal, J.

These contempt proceedings against the respondents have been initiated on the basis of a letter from Mr. P.L. Goyal Subordinate JudgecumJudicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagadhri.

Briefly, the facts are that Mr. Goyal joined as Subordinate JudgecumJudicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagadhri, with effect from 29th March, 1982. Madan Lal Bhasin Rana, respondent No. 1, and Mahesh Bhasin Rana, respondent No. 2, are father and son. Respondent No. 1 is the Editor of two local newspapersJanta Milap, Yamunanagar, and MehfalEAdab and respondent No. 2 is the Editor of Rana Partap. It is alleged that respondent No. 1 publishes advertisements of various companies without their instructions and then sends bills to those companies. If they do not pay the bills, he files suits for recovery of the amounts against them as an indigent person. Later, he withdraws the suit after receiving the amounts out of the Court. This fact was noticed by a Division Bench of this Court in Civil Revision No. 2320 of 1980 decided on 1st April, 1982. In that case, the list of such cases supplied to the Division Bench was of over 300 cases. It is further stated that he also had been getting published some defamatory articles against himself in the newspapers of some friends, whereafter he would file suits for damages or criminal complaints under section 500, Indian Penal Code, against the purported writers of those articles. He then extracted money from such persons and withdrew the criminal complaints. Thus, he has been abusing the process of the Court. Various cases are still pending in the Courts at Jagadhri. He used to get his 1012 cases fixed for a particular date. Mr. Goyal, after taking the charge, told him that his cases would be fixed on different dates because of administrative difficulties. He felt annoyed because of that action.

In the first weak of May, 1982, respondent No. 2 entered his Court when he was hearing arguments in a case. He introduced himself as a Journalist to Mrs. Goyal and handed over a copy of a newspaper. Mr. Goyal told him that it was not proper to hand over the newspaper at that stage and to interfere in the Court proceedings. At this, he felt humiliated. Respondent No. 1 was standing in the verandah of the Court room at that time. Having felt aggrieved from the humiliation to which the respondents were put by Mr. Goyal, they published a news item in Rana Partap dated 8th May, 1982, where in they made false allegations that Mr. Goyal, a victim of Emergency, inaugurated the election campaign of a local property dealer of yamunanagar, who had amassed wealth in the sale and purchase of plots in collusion with the local officers on the stage of MehfalEAdab during its annual Mushaira held in the Town Hall of Yamunanager on 31st March, 1982. It was further stated that the candidates spent a huge amount to meet the expenses of a function at the instance of Mr. Goyal. The copy of the news item is Annexure `C''. The news item was again published by Madan Lal Bhasin Rana on 16th May, 1982, in the news paper MehfalEAdab. The invitation which was extended to the citizens for attending the Annual Function of MehfalEAdab on 31st March, 1982, is Annexure `E''. It is alleged by Mr. Goyal that the articles were published with the aim of lowering his prestige in the public.

There after, on 4th July, 1982, the respondents published several news items in Rana Partap in which it was inter alia stated that respondent No. 1 had made a complaint about the corruption of Mr. Goyal to the higher courts, that Mr. O.P. Datta, a press reporter, had informed respondent No. 1 that Mr. Goyal had said that he would ruin respondent No. 1 by misusing his judicial powers and would get him killed from the criminals who were his coprisoners during his imprisonment for nineteen days during Emergency and that Mr. Goyal had inaugurated the election campaign of the candidate of Mr. Sher Singh, ExMinister, for Yamunanager seat to the Haryana Vidhan Sabha, at the instance of the said Minister and that the cases under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act at Jagadhri would be tried by Mr. Sham Sunder Singh Dahiya instead of Mr. Goyal. It was further stated that on account of this change, an Advocate and his gang who exploited Mr. Goyal felt disappointed. The reasons for the transfer of the work from Mr. Goyal''s Court to Mr. Dahiya''s Court was that the latter was appointed as a Magistrate at Jagadhri on 15th June, 1982 and he happened to be the seniormost Judicial Magistrate there. The food cases, according to the instructions of the High Court, were to be tried by the Seniormost Judicial Magistrate at a station. It is alleged that in view of the posting of Mr. Dahiya, the cases under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were transferred to his Court from that of Mr. Goya''. Mr. Goyal states that all the news items were totally baseless and were calculated to malign him as a Judicial Officer. The news items are purported to have been published in the name of respondent No. 2 but the real brain behind them, it is stated, was respondent No. 1

The showcause notice on receipt of the letter was issue to the respondents on 5th August, 1982. Another letter dated 22nd October, 1982, was received from Mr. Goyal stating that some facts in para 4 of the petition had been mentioned by him without verification from the officers concerned. He, therefore, made amendments in para 4. It may here be mentioned that the amendments in para 4 are of no consequence for the decision of the contempt proceedings.

Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed by written replies dated 30th August, 1982, and 3rd September, 1982, respectively. It was later discovered that the reply dated 30th August, 1982, filed respondent No. 1 was not supported by an affidavit. Therefore, he was directed vide order dated 29th October, 1982, to file his reply in an affidavit form. Thereafter, he filed his reply dated 2nd November, 1982, in the form of an affidavit. Both the respondents contested the petition and denied that they were guilty of the contempt of Court. Respondent No. 2 further said if he was found guilty of the contempt of Court, he tendered his unconditional apology.

The replies of the respondents along with annexures run over several hundred pages. In order to make the matter precise, the chargesheets were framed against both the respondents which are as follows :

Charge sheet against respondent No. 1. :

"That you Madan Lal Bhasin Rana hereby charged as under :

That in the first week of May, 1982, in your presence your son and corespondent Mahesh Bhasin Rana obstructed the Court proceedings while Sh. P.L. Goyal, SubJudicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri, was hearing arguments in a case and this obstruction by your son and corespondent was with your connivance and at your instance.

That your son and correspondent Mahesh Bhasin Rana in connivance and at your instance published a news item Annexure `C'', dated 8th May, 1982, in his newspaper `Rana Partap'' contents where of amounted to contempt of Court.

That you on 16th May, 1982, published a pamphlet `MehfalEAdab'' Annexure `D'' levelling allegations against Sh. P.L. Goyal, SubJudgecumJudicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri, which amounted to contempt of his Court.

That at your instance and with your connivance your son and corespondent Mahesh Bhasin Rana, Editor `Rana Partap'' got published therein a news item on 4.7.1982, Annexure `F''. The contents of the said news item amounted to the clear contempt of the Court of Shri P.L. Goyal, SubJudgecumJudicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri."

Charge sheet against respondent No. 2. :

That you Mahesh Bhasin Rana is hereby charged as under :

That in the first week of May, 1982, you at the instance of your father Madan Lal Bhasin Rana and with his connivance obstructed the Court proceedings of Shri P.L. Goyal, Sub JudgecumJudicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri, who has then hearing arguments in a case.

That you at the instance of your father and corespondent Shri Madan Lal Bhasin Rana published a news item Annexure `C'' in newspaper `Rana Partap'' of which you are the Editor, Contents whereof constituted contempt of Court of Shri P.L. Goyal, Sub JudgecumJudicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri.

That at the instance of your father and corespondent Shri Madan Lal Bhasin Rana, you as Editor of the Newspaper `Rana Partap'' got published a news item dated 4.7.1982, Annexure `F'', the contents whereof constituted contempt of court of Shri P.L. Goyal, Sub JudgecumJudicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri."

First, we shall deal with charge No. 1 against both the respondents which relates to the same incident. The allegation of Mr. Goyal is that respondent No. 2 entered his Court room when he was hearing arguments in a case, introduced himself as a Journalist and passed on a copy of the newspaper to him, while respondent No. 1 was standing in the Verandah of the Court room. There is no allegation that respondent No. 2 said something beyond the dignity of the Court. The allegation is that he was guilty of obstructing its proceedings. We do not think that he became guilty of obstructing the proceedings, if he introduced himself as a Journalist and handed over a copy of the newspaper to the Court. We, however, feel that proper thing for respondent No. 2 was to seek the permission of the Court before handing over the copy to Mr. Goyal or to wait till the arguments were concluded. No allegation whatsoever has been made against respondent No. 1. He was stated to be standing in the Verandah out side the Court room. It is wellsettled that proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are in the nature of quasi criminal proceedings and unless the charge of contempt of Court is proved beyond a shadow of doubt, no person can be convicted under the Act. The acts of the respondents cannot be said to amount to contempt of the Court. We are, therefore, of the opinion that charge No. 1 is not proved against either of the respondents.

Charge No. 2 against both the respondents again relates to the publication of a news item, Annexure `C'', and therefore, we propose to deal with the charge against both of them together. In order to appreciate the allegation, it will be proper to reproduce English translation of Annexure `C'', hereunder :

"Opening ceremony of election campaign by Pitambar Lal Goyal, Magistrate an emergency victim, who had undergone imprisonment during emergency.

Fraud by bringing a candidate into the public under the cover of `Mushaira'' held by MehafilEAdab.

Yamunanagar : The news that a local property dealer, who has amassed wealth in the sale and purchase of plots, in collusion with the local officer, chalked out a programme to contest the election for the Haryana Vidhan Sabha, for the seat of the Yamunanagar constituency, has caused sensation ...... To achieve this aim, the opening ceremony of the election campaign was conducted by Shri "Pitambr Lal Goyal, an emergency victim who was imprisoned. The plan was kept secret in such a way that even the guardian and the founder of MehfilEAdab, Shri M.B. Rana, the other members and the opposing candidates, could not notice it at that time. It is said that the aforesaid candidate spent a huge amount to meet the expenses of the function at the instance of Shri Goyal. Many photographs of the said Magistrate were taken in the function in order to exploit the public. The aforesaid Magistrate had presided over the above mentioned function ..... The treatment meted out to Shri Pitambar Lal Goyal, during the regime of Bansi Lal as well as while he was in the jail, tantamount to teach him a lesson. Is this the reason that the local supporters and the people having links with the Bansi Lal group feel afraid of him ? Shri Pitambar Lal took charge at Jagadhri in the end of March. Material is being collected for publication, which could only be published after the election to be held on 19th May. "(Emphasis supplied by underlining.)

The invitation card which was issued for inviting citizens has been annexed as Annexure `E'' wherein it had been inter alia said that with the aid of Haryana Sahitya Academy, MehfalEAdab was celebrating Annual Function on 31st March, 1982, in the Town Hall, Yamuna Nagar, in which Ch. Preet Singh, Sub Division Magistrate, Jagadhri, had consented to preside and that the poets expected to participate were Sarvshri Satish Bhawal Puri, Bal Krishan Muztir, Berang Shib, etc. etc.

Respondent No. 1 in the reply dated 2nd November, 1982 tried to justify the news items and denied his participation in the publication. Respondent No. 2 in reply dated 3rd September, 1982 admitted the publication of the news item and he also tried to justify it on the ground that it was based on real facts. We, however, have not been able to persuade ourselves to accept the version of respondent No. 2. He alleged that he came to know later that the function had in fact been arranged to inaugurate the election campaign of Mr. Chopra. He was present in the function and if Mr. Goyal had inaugurated the election campaign he must have come to know about it at the same time and in that situation, he would not have taken that much time to publish it. Mr. Goyal, as already stated, joined as a Judicial Officer on 29th March, 1982, whereas the function was held on 31st March 1982, that is, two days after his taking over. It cannot be thought of that he has developed so much friendship with some of the office bearers of the MehfalEAdab and with Mr. Chopra that he prevailed upon the latter to spend huge amount to meet the expenses of the function. he was not connected with the MehfalEAdab in any way. He had gone to hear the poets. He was also not invited to preside over the function. On the other hand, Mr. Preet Singh, SubDivisional Magistrate, Jagadhri, was invited to do so. Mr. Preet Singh, however, could not reach there because of some unforeseen circumstances. As Mr. Goyal along with his colleagues Sarvshri P. C. Goyal and J.B. Sharma, was present there, it is stated that an announcement was made that the function would be presided over by him. It is further stated that he did not sit on the dias nor he spoke from there. The above averments have not been denied specifically by respondent No. 2 who has given another inconsistent version. That version does not find place even in the news item published by him and, therefore, that cannot be accepted. Moreover, the Mushaira was held with the cooperation and assistance of Haryana Sahitya Academy, a nonpolitical body of the State Government, where two colleagues of Mr. Goyal were also present. In their presence, Mr. Goyal could not think of inaugurating the election campaign of any candidate. It also cannot be lost sight of that Mr. Preet Singh, SubDivisional Magistrate, who was to preside over the function, could not attend it and that Mr. Goyal happened to be the seniormost Magistrate present there. In that situation, his name was announced to preside over the function. More over, as already stated above, respondent No. 2 was present in the function and in case it was the inauguration of an election campaign, he would not have taken that much time in publishing the news item. All the above facts belie the insinuations made by respondent No. 2 against Mr. Goyal.

In the news item, it is further stated that the candidate (Mr. Chopra) spent huge amount to meet the expenses of the function at the instance of Mr. Goyal. This insinuation also does not appear to be correct. Mr. Goyal had taken over as a Magistrate there two days prior to the function and it cannot be believed that he would have requested Mr. Chopra to bear the expenses of the function. The function must also have been planned much before he took over as a Magistrate at Jagadhri.

It is also stated in the news items at two places, including the head lines, that he was a victim of emergency and that the local supporters and the people having links with Ch. Bansi Lal''s group felt afraid of him. A threat was also given to Mr. Goyal that material was being collected against him for publication. There was no purpose of mentioning the above facts except to malign, defame and intimidate him. The reason appears to be that respondent No. 1 was great litigant. He had earlier instituted hundreds of suits in forma pauperis. Mostly, the suits were for damages for defamation which used to be got dismissed in default after his purpose, whatever, that be, was satisfied. One of the parties came up in petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in C.R. No. 2320 of 1980 (M/s Bochringer Kohli Ltd. v. Distt. and Sessions Judge, Ambala, etc.), decided on 1st April 1982. This Court accepted the petition and ordered that the respondent would pay court fee which he was liable to pay if he had not been permitted sue as an indigent person and that he would also pay Rs. 3,000/ by way of compensatory costs in terms of section 35A of the Code of Civil Procedure. A copy of the judgment is Annexure `A''. The petitioners in that case were able to cite about 300 such cases. Many similar cases of respondent No. 1 were pending in the Court of Mr. Goyal who had started fixing them on different dates instead of fixing them on one day as was being done in the past on account of which respondent No. 2, who is no other person than the son of respondent No. 1, published the news item. However, it is not possible to hold that the news item was published at the instance of respondent No. 1.

All the above allegations have been made in order to scandalise Mr. Goyal and to lower the authority of his Court. The allegations are an attack on his impartiality. Thus, they obstruct the administration of justice.

Now, it is to be seen whether these allegations amount to contempt of Court. Clause (c) of section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act defines "criminal contempt", s follows "criminal contempt'' means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which

(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court, or

(ii) * * *

* * *

(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs, or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner;"

The section was interpreted by a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in State v. S. N. Dikshit, 1973 Cr.L.J. 1211. It was observed there that an act of criminal contempt must be tested on the touchstone of its potentiality for scandalising or lowering the authority of any Court or interfering or tending to interfere with or obstruct the administration of justice in any manner. Therefore, it is not necessary that the consequences of actually scandalising or lowering the authority of the Court or obstruction or interference with the administration of justice must result. It is further observed that if there is an inherent tendency in the said action of leading to such consequences, it will come within the mischief of the term "contempt of Court". The words "to scandalise the Court" have been interpreted in State of MadhyaPradesh v. Revashankar, AIR 1959 Supreme Court 102, as follows :

"..... there were innumerable ways by which attempts could be made to hinder or obstruct the due administration of justice in courts and one type of such interference was found in cases where there was an act which amounted to `scandalising the court itself'' : this scandalising might manifest itself in various ways but in substance it was an attack on individual judges or the court as a whole with or without reference to particular cases, causing unwarranted and defamatory aspersions upon the character and ability of the judges. Such conduct is punished as contempt for the reason that it tends to create distrust in the popular mind and impair the confidence of the people in the courts which are of prime importance to the litigants in the protections of their rights and liberties."

From the above observations it is evident that even an attack on individual Judges without reference to any case may amount to contempt of Court and such a conduct is punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act. A Judge is not that supposed to express his opinion on political issues in the public as hampers the judicial work. In the above said view, we are fortified by the observations of the Supreme Court in Ram Partap and others v. Daya Nand and others, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 809, wherein it was said by A.N. Ray, C.J., speaking for the Court, that if any Judge addresses on political problems or controversies he exposes himself to discussion by public. The reasons is that the Judge travels from his judicial work and descends into the arena of politics and parties. The Judge cannot in such a case take shelter behind his office if the public discusses and criticises the view expressed by him. The reason is obvious. It is no part of the duty of a Judge nor is it a duty in discharge of office of a Judge to go and address a meeting on political matters to redress grievances of the people.

From the observations it is clear that if without any basis an imputation is made on a Judge regarding his taking part in politics that will amount to scandalising him in the public and thus will constitute contempt of Court.

Mr. Nagra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, made a referenced to The Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M/s. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries and another, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 946. However, we think that he cannot derive any benefit from that case. The Supreme Court observed therein that the abuse of the process of Court calculated to hamper the due course of a judicial proceeding or the orderly administration of justice is a contempt of Court. The Public have an interest, an abiding and a real interest, and a vital stake in the effective and orderly administration of justice, because, unless justice is so administered, there is the peril of all rights and liberties and perishing. The Court has the duty of protecting the interest of the public in the due administration of justice and, so it is entrusted with the power to commit for contempt of Court, not in order to protect the dignity of the Court against insult or injury as the expression `contempt of Court'' may seen to suggest, but to protect and to vindicate the right of the public that the administration of justice shall not be prevented, prejudiced, obstructed or interfered with. It is the mode of vindicating the majesty of law, in its active manifestation against obstruction and outrage. It has been further observed that the law should not be seen to sit by limply, while those who defy it go free and those who seek its protection lose hope.

From the above observations also it is clear that the powers to commit for contempt of Court have been given to protect and to vindicate the right of the public so that the administration of justice shall not be obstructed or interfered with. The item is not a fair comment too.

After taking into consideration all the aforesaid circumstances and the case law we are of the opinion that the respondent No. 2 is guilty of contempt of Court as far as this charge is concerned. However, the charge is not proved against respondent No. 1.

Now, we shall deal with charge No. 3 against respondent No. 1. The news items is Annexure `D'' was published by respondent No. 1 in the newspaper MehfalEAdab dated 16th May, 1982. The English translation of the news item reads as follows :

"Opening ceremony of election campaign by Pitamber Lal Goyal, Magistrate, an emergency victim, who was imprisoned during emergency. Fraud by bringing a candidate into the public under the cover of Mushiara held by MehfalEAdab."

The respondent, in his reply dated 2nd November, 1982, admitted the publication of the news item Annexure `D''. However, it is stated by him that it was only a reference to the heading of the news item Annexure `C''. He further tried to justify the publication of the news item. We have already held that publication of the news item Annexure `C'' amounts to contempt of Court against respondent No. 2. The question arises that if a matter which amounts to contempt of Court has been published in one news paper, its publication in another newspaper on the basis of the former will amount to contempt of Court or not. In our view, the publication of such a matter in another newspaper will also amount to contempt of Court and the Editor of the latter newspaper cannot plead justification on the ground that the news appeared in another newspaper or that it was true. We got support to some extent from the observations in Perspective Publication (P) Ltd. and another v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 221, wherein it was held that truthfulness of factual correctness is good defence in an action for libel but in the law of contempt there are hardly any English or Indian cases in which such defence had been recognised. We, therefore, hold that respondent No. 1 is guilty of the charge.

Charge No. 4 against respondent No. 1 and charge No. 3 against respondent No. 2 are correlated. Both these charges shall be dealt with by us together. The charge against respondent No. 2 is that he published Annexure `F'', news item dated 4th July, 1982, against Mr. P.L. Goyal in `Rana Partap" which constituted contempt of Court. The charge against respondent No. 1 is that the news item Annexure `F'' was published by respondent No. 2 at his instance and connivance. Annexure `F'' consist of four news items. The relevant parts of Annexure `F'' (English translation) are as follows :

"(1) Civil Courts at Jagadhri.

...... Remember that Shri M.B. Rana has made a written complaint regarding the indulgence in corruption by Shri Pitamber Lal Goel to the higher Courts.

(2) Fight amongst jail birds.

On 27th May, a local pressreporter Shri O.P. Dutta had consultations with Shri Pitamber Lal Goyal, Judicial Magistrate, Jagadhri, who had undergone imprisonment, in his Chamber. After the interview Shri Om Parkas Dutta told that Shri Pitamber Lal Goyal and a local pressreporter, both were jail birds and that both of them had quarrel with each other, that Shri Pitamber Lal had got his job after coming into confrontation with Ch. Bhajan Lal, the ironman of Haryana as well as Smt. Indira Gandhi, the Prime Minister of the country and after underdoing imprisonment for 19 months; that he (Mr. Goyal) would ruin the press reporter by misusing his judicial powers and that he would get the reporter killed from criminals, who were his coprisoner during his imprisonment for 19 months. Shri Pitamber Lal Goyal had held the opening ceremony of the election campaign of the candidate of the Sh. Sher Sigh, ExMinister, for the Yamuna Nagar seat of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha, at his instance.

(3) Trial of the adulteration cases.

Under orders of the High Court, the cases under the Food Adulteration Act at Jagadhri SubDivision would be tried by Shri Sham Sunder Singh Dahiya instead of Shri Pitamber Lal Goel, Magistrate. This news has utterly disappointed an Advocate and his gang, who used to exploit the name of Shri Pitamber Lal.

(4) MehfalEAdab Politics.

A reporter who is the founder of the MehfalEAdab has declared that the President, who was removed at the instance of Shri Pitamber Lal Goyal has embezzled the funds."

Regarding news item No. (1) above, the respondents in their replies justified its publication stating that it was based on facts. There is nothing on record to show that the news item was published at the instance of and with the connivance of respondent No. 1. Therefore, he cannot be held guilty of the charge. Therefore, he cannot be held guilty of the charge. Respondent No. 2 admittedly published the news item. The publication, in our vies, is with a view to defame Mr. Goyal and to lower his prestige. If that was not the idea, what was the use of giving publicity to the news that a complaint against him on the ground of corruption had been made. It is not out of place to mention that under charge No. (1), it has been held that false and defamatory allegations were levelled by respondent No. 2 against Mr. Goyal and they were published by him in the newspaper. This item appears to be in continuation of the same campaign which is meant to malign Mr. Goyal. Even if respondent No. 1 had made a complaint against Mr. Goyal, there was no occasion for the respondent to give it wide publicity. In such matters, truthfulness of the allegation is no defence. (See : Perspective Publication on (P) Ltd.''s case (supra).) It was also held in that case that the publication of disparaging statement would be an injury to the public if it tends to create an apprehension in the minds of the people regarding the integrity, ability of fairness of the judge or to deter actual and prospective litigants from placing complete reliance upon the court''s administration of justice or if it is likely to cause embarrassment in the mind of the judge himself in the discharge of his judicial duties. The news item, in addition to causing embarrassment to Mr. Goyal, also creates an impression in the minds of the people that Mr. Goyal is not a man of integrity. After taking into consideration the abovesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that respondent No. 2 is guilty of the charge of contempt so far as this news item is concerned.

News item No. (2) of Annexure `F'' is also prima facie scandalous. Respondent No. 2 time and again has been highlighting that Mr. Goyal suffered imprisonment during the emergency. This was with no purpose than to scandalise him in the public. In the news item, respondent No. 2 further levelled an allegation against Mr. Goyal though representing that Mr. O.P. Dutta told him so, that Mr. Goyal would misuse his judicial power and get the reporter killed from his cocriminals. It is clear from the news item that reference is made to respondent No. 1 though the word `reporter'' is used. This again is an attack on the character of Mr. Goyal that he is not fit to be a Judicial Officer as he can stoop so law as to misuse his judicial powers. In Revashankar''s case (supra), an allegation was made against a Magistrate that he had joined in a conspiracy to implicate the accused in a false case of theft, and the other was that he had taken a bribe of Rs. 500/. It was held that the aspersions amounted to something more than a mere untetetional personal insult to the Magistrate; they scandalised the Court itself and impaired the administration of justice. The allegation cannot be said to be in good faith also for the reason that respondent No. 2 was alleged to have been so informed by Mr. O.P. Dutta. It is not averred that he, after the information, tried to verify it from other sources. A person cannot be said to have acted in good faith if he published any item without verifying the same diligently. We are fortified by the observations of the Division Bench in S.N. Dikshit''s case (supra) wherein it was observed that the only tangible test which could be applied for judging the good faith of a person in doing certain act was as to whether he acted with due care and attention. It was further held that it was surely not open to a person to take precipitate action only on vague information received by him from irresponsible sources and without verifying the same diligently.

Respondent No. 2 also repeated in the news item that Mr. Goyal had held the opening ceremony of the election campaign of a candidate of Mr. Sher Singh, ExMinister, at his instance. This has a reference to the alleged inauguration of the election campaign of Mr. Chopra by him. We have already held above that this part of the news item was published to scandalise Mr. Goyal. There is also implied insinuation in it that Mr. Goyal is a man of Mr. Sher Singh. The news item is again to defame Mr. Goyal and to shake the confidence of the public in him. It has been held in Rama Dayal Markhara v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 921, that if the criticism is likely to interfere with due administration of justice or undermine the confidence which the public rightly repose in the courts of law as courts of justice, the criticism would cease to be fair and reasonable criticism as contemplated by section 5 of the Act but would scandalise courts and substantially interfered with administration of justice.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the opinion that respondent No. 2 is guilty of contempt of the Court. As observed above, the charge against respondent No. 1 does not stand proved.

In new item No. (3) of Annexure `F'', the grievance of Mr. Goyal is that in order to defame him it was stated therein that he was being exploited by a lawyer. It is further alleged that there is an insinuation that the lawyer was taking benefit in the cases under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act in his Court and that was why such cases had been withdrawn from him. Mr. Goyal has given an explanation regarding transfer of such cases. It is that the High Court had issued instructions that the cases under said Act are to be tried by the senior most Magistrate at station and consequently after Mr. Dahiya joined at Jagadhri the cases were transferred to him as he was the senior most Magistrate at that station. We are, however, of the opinion that from a reading of the news item, no inference can be drawn that the news item consists of insinuations against Mr. Goyal. It does not say anything against him. Therefore, the charge against respondent No. 2 cannot be said to have been proved. There is nothing to show that respondent No. 1 has any hand in its publication. Consequently, the charge against him too is not proved.

With regard to news item No. (4), nothing has been said against Mr. Goyal in it. The insinuation can be said to be that the President of the MehfalEAdab was removed at the instance of Mr. Goyal when he had no concern with it. Even if the news item is wrong, that does not in any way cast any aspersions on him. Consequently we are of the opinion that the charge is not proved against the respondents.

Now, we advert to the question of sentence to be awarded to the respondents. Respondent No. 1 has levelled baseless allegations against Mr. goyal in whose Court many of his cases are pending. This has been done in order to overawe him. In our view, the sentence of fine only will not be adequate in the circumstances of the present case. A reference has been made by the respondents to Smt. Pushpaben and another v. Narandas V. Badiani and another, A.I.R. 1979 Supreme Court 1536 where in it was observed that a sentence of fine alone should be imposed in normal cases and where the Court passes the extreme sentence of imprisonment, it must give special reasons for doing so. The above observations were made in a case of civil contempt, taking into consideration SubSection (3) of section 12 of the Act which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the section, where a person is found guilty of a civil contempt, the Court, if it considers that a fine will not meet the ends of justice and that a sentence of imprisonment is necessary shall, instead of sentencing him to simple imprisonment, direct that he be detained in a civil prison. No such provision has been made for a criminal contempt. After taking in to consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we sentence respondent No. 1 to undergo two months'' simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ or in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. The conduct of respondent No. 2 is equally reprehensible. He is also not entitled to a lenient treatment. Mr. Nagra brought to our notice that he tendered an unconditional apology. However, we are not inclined to accept the same. For similar reasons, we sentence him to undergo two month''s simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ or in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.

In the end, It may be mentioned that a letter has been received from M.L. Bhasin Rana, Respondent No. 1 that he was in judicial custody and therefore, was unable to attend the court on 29th instant. He has requested that he may be ordered to be produced on the said date. the case is fixed for pronouncement of the order which can be pronounced in his absence. Therefore, no action is called for on the said letter.

D.S. Tewatia, J. I agree.