Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunam vs Nanak Chand Nagpal & ors.

S.S. Dewan, J.

This rule was issued against Sarvshri Nanak Chand Nagpal son of Chhankanda Ram, Press Reporter, Sunam, Virender, Editor, the Daily Partap, Jalandhar (Urdu), Nehru Garden Road, Jalandhar and Chander Mohan, Printer and Publisher of the Daily Partap, Jalandhar, for contempt of Court for publishing a news item published in the Daily Partap, Jalandhar, (Urdu) dated May 10, 1986. This rule was based on a report submitted to this Court by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunam, dated May 22, 1986.

The facts leading to this rule are that a case State v. Murari Lal etc. under section 323/427/148/149, Indian Penal Code, was pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunam against 11 persons. The case was on the basis of FIR No. 60, dated February 14, 1984, Police Station Sunam.

On May 8, 1986, the said case was decided by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class (complainant) in which all the 11 accused were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and a fine of Rs. 250/; in default further rigorous imprisonment for one month each for an offence under section 323/149, Indian Penal Code. All the accused were also convicted under section 427/149, Indian Penal Cede and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and a fine of Rs. 250/ each in default further rigorous imprisonment for two months each. Up to this stage, the facts are admitted.

According to complainant, the accused in the above noted case did not deposit the fine of Rs. 500/ each nor moved any application for suspending us the sentence under section 389, Criminal Procedure Code, to enable them time to file an appeal against their conviction Therefore, all the accused were sent to jail.

The accused filed an appeal in the Court of Sessions Judge, Sangrur on May 9, 1986. The learned Sessions Judge Sangrur, suspended the sentence of imprisonment and fine till the disposal of the appeal and ordered that the accused be released on furnishing personal bond it the sum of Rs. 5000/ each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Ilaqa Magistrate. The order of the Sessions Judge was received, surety bonds were furnished by the accused and the release warrants were ordered to be issued. A news item appeared in the Daily Partap, Jalandhar (Urdu), dated May 10, 1986, on the front page and some portion thereof was at page 4. The English translation of the news item published is as under.

COMPLETE STRIKE AT SUNAM, BUSINESS STANDSTILL. PROTEST AGAINT THE BEHAVIOUR OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE.

Remarks about the incident of strike observed on 14th February, 1984. Matter regarding the case against eleven workers of Punjab Hindu Surakaha Samiti. Sunam, May 9 (Nagpal) Complete bandh was observed at Sunam today. The entire business remained stand still so much so no auction of wheat was held in the Grain Market. The labour also did not attend to their work. The people of Sunam were making a protest against the behaviour of Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicial Magistrate, The people alleged his behaviour to be based on narrow mindedness and communalism and in order to show their anger they made their business stand still. The eye view of the episode is that he awarded one year imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/ to all the 11 members of Hindu Suraksha Samiti for observing strike on 14th February. 1984, and when the concerned workers tried to get the amount of fine deposited, the same was not accepted, Their bail applications were also not considered. The legal minded persons of the Halqa have their opinion that when a person wants to deposit the amount of fine imposed by the Court then the Court is bound to accept the same and the applications regarding bail of such persons are to be considered but in this case both the points have been ignored. The people by sending telegrams to the Chief Justice of Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court. the Prime Minister Shri Rajiv Gandhi and State Home Minister for Internal Security Shri. Arun Nehru, have demanded a judicial enquiry and justice to them. A case for an offence punishable under sections 327, 323 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the workers of Hindu Suraksha Samiti, namely. Sarvshri Anand Sarup, Advocate, General Secretary, Bharatiya Janta Party, District Sangrur and his son Vinod Gupta, Om Parkash Mittal, Naval Kishore Kansal, Chetan Parkash Mittal, Surinder Kumar Garg, Parveen Kumar, Gian Chand Garg, Tarsem Lal Chhabra, Bhim Sen and Murari Lal and the same was pending trial. Yesterday, the learned Magistrate Shri Kuldip Singh pronounced the judgment and awarded one year imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/ to each of them.

They tendered the amount of fine at the spot and at the same time they produced their applications for bail but the aforesaid Magistrate neither accepted the amount of fine nor considered their applications for bail. As per opinion of the legal experts, the entire action is against law. At this, the people got angry and they showed their anger through strike under protest. The aforesaid case relates to the occurrence dated February 14, 1984. On that day, the strike was observed in the whole of the Punjab. on the appeal of Hindu Suraksha Samiti and Bharatiya Janata Party. The complete Hartal was observed at Sunam also. Some of the persons had attacked them near the Sabzi Mandi area. The police did lathi charge them and used tear gas. A deputation of the citizens met the Governor Shri Pande and as eer his directions, Shri. P. Ram. Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur got a compromise effected between both the pattas and issued instructions to withdraw the cases. But the police did not withdraw the cases and the same have been decided yesterday. Neither the bail applications were portion considered nor the amount of fine was accepted. Today, again the deputation met the Deputy Commissioner who gave an assurance that they would be released on bail as per law."

The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sunam, has moved this Court for taking action under section 10 read with section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, (hereinafter called the Act), as the article is highly contemptous and has further stated that no application for suspending the sentence was moved nor the amount of fine was tendered in his Court and the news in the article was contrary to facts.

Notices were issued to Nanak Chand Nagpal, Press Reporter, Virender, Editor, and Chander Mohan, Printer and Publisher of the Dairy Partap. Chander Mohan Printer and Publisher tendered unconditional apology and pleaded that the mistake which has occurred is through an inadvertence. Shri Nanak Chand Nagpal, in reply to the notice, stated that the judgment was pronounced at 4 P.M. on May 8, 1986, and the Presiding Officer left the Court room without entertaining the request of the accused for their bail and deposit of fine. He further stated that certified copy of the judgment was not supplied immediately and the Magistrate was approached at his residence for grant of bail and deposit of fine, but the application was not entertained. Further, the warrants of all the accused for committing them to jail were signed by the Magistrate at his residence at 6 p. m. and consequently the District Jail authorities at Sangrur refused to admit them in jail being late. Therefore, they had to be taken to Central Jail, Patiala.

It is also pleaded by Shri Nagpal that there was complete Bandh at Sunam on May 9, 1986, and he had not conveyed anything of his own accord Rather, he reported the news as it was collected by him and the words narrow mindedness and communalism" were used by the mob and whatever was stated by them at the time of agitation, it was conveyed faithfully to the paper. He has pleaded that there was no intention of scandalizing or lowering the prestige of the Court or to interfere with the judicial proceedings in any manner. Therefore, be cannot be punished unless this Court is satisfied under section 12 of the Act.

Shri Virender, Editor of the Daily Partap has owned the version of Shri Nagpal and has stated in his reply that from the news item sent by local correspondent, it seems that the accused persons in that particular case had offered to deposit Rs. 500/ each and had moved an application for suspension of sentence under section 389 Cr. PC but the same was not entertained. He has further pleaded that he has been the Editor of the Daily Partap for the last 40 years and has been member of the Press Council of India and President of All India Newspaper Editors Conference. He has no personal illwill against the Magistrate and if the Magistrate had not written to him for contradiction or clarification of the news, he would have published the same and in view of the fact that the Magistrate bad not written to him for contradiction he is not at fault. He pleads that the Daily Partap has its correspondents all over the country and the Editor has to depend upon its correspondents for the news which he has to publish in the newspaper. He having no personal ill will is not guilty of any contempt, but in spite of that if technically it is found that he is in any way guilty of interfering in the functioning of the Court, then he tenders apology.

We have heard Shri S. K. Sayal, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and Shri Ashok Bhan, senior Advocate learned counsel for the condemners.

The facts are not much in dispute. The complaint against the condemners relates to publication of an article dated May 10, 1986, in the Daily Partap (Urdu), Jalandhar. The publication is not denied. Shri Nanak Chand Nagpal, Reporter, has pleaded that he has faithfully reported the facts as he observed and the words "narrowmindedness and communalism" were used by the mob against the Magistrate. Therefore, by reporting this, he has done his duty, as a Reporter. Shri Virender has pleaded that he had published what his Reporter had sent to him. He having no personal knowledge and, therefore, has not committed any contempt.

Mr Ashok Bhan Senior Advocate learned counsel for the condemners has argued that the respondents have not committed any contempt because they had faithfully reported and published what is factually correct and as a Press Reporter it was the duty of Shri Nanak Chand Nagpal to the public that he must report to his paper what was actually happening. In reporting factual news the Reporter has not committed any contempt and has not scandalized or lowered the authority of any Court.

We do not find any force in the argument of Mr. Asok Bhan. The article contains a charge that the attitude of the Judicial Magistrate is based on communalism and narrowmindedness. Such a charge cannot be covered by the scope of any fair comment or faithful reporting. When particularily is attributed to a Court in passing an order or deciding a case, the limits of fair comment are clearly crossedimpartiality is a characteristic of a Court and any attack on it seriously affects its prestige and dignity. The publishing of the news item will certainly give an impression that the Judicial Magistrate is influenced by narrow mindedness and communalism in deciding cases. The confidence of the whole community in the administration of justice is bound to undermine and no greater mischief than that can possibly be imagined.

The contents of the article clearly suggest that it was published with an intention to undermine the prestige of the Court. It is in public interest that confidence should exist in Court of Justice and if an attack is made upon a Judge, who is not in a position to answer the attack, the authority and the prestige of the Judge tends to be lowered in the estimation of the public and that is contrary to the interests of the public.

Instead of tendering an unconditional apology, Shri Nagpal and Shri Virender have justified and publication of the article. We have not been able to appreciates how a charge of narrowminded and communal" can be justified on the ground that some people were saying that the Magistrate is narrowminded and communal. The Reporter sent the report containing these allegations and the Editor allowed them to be punished without realising the implication of the same.

Shri Nagpal and Shri Virender have not tendered unconditional apologies and have pleaded justification and in the end stated that if it is not accepted, then they may be pardoned. This is a conditional apology and cannot be accepted.

As a result of the above discussion, we hold that Shri Nagpal, Shri Virender and Shri Chander Mohan have committed contempt of Court and are guilty of the charge.

In view of the unconditional apology tendered by Shri Chander Mohan, a warning will suffice and he is warned to be careful in future. So far Shri Nagpal and Virender are concerned, keeping in view their ages, we do not intend to send them to jail and feel that a fine of Rs. 1000/ each, in default thereof one month simple imprisonment, will meet the ends of justice. We order accordingly. The fine may be deposited within two weeks.