H.K. Sema, J.
1. These two Criminal Contempt Petitions arises out of publication of an article published by the publisher in the Assamese daily Newspaper 'Dainik Agradoot' in its publication dated 13.12.1997 (Annexure-1, in the Criminal Contempt Petition No. 1/98). The identical article was also published in another Assamese daily newspaper 'Azir Batori' in its publication on 13.12.1997 (Annexure-1 in Contempt Petition No. 2 of 1998). The aforesaid two Contempt Petitions being arises out of the identical article published on 13.12.1997, though in different local dailies, we proposed to dispose these two petitions analogously by this common Judgment.
2. We have heard Mr. A.S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the petition. Mr. D.C. Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondents in Criminal Contempt Petition No. 1/98 and Mr. J.M. Choudhury, learned sr. counsel for the CROP (C) No. 2/98 at length.
3. Before we proceed further, we may at this stage dispose of one submission of Mr. A.S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner. It insisted by Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid two petitions be heard separately. We are not at all convinced because identical article has been published on the same date, though in different local dailies as already noted.
4. The publication of Article in 'DAINIK AGRADOOT' in its publication dated 13.12.1997 Annexure-1 in Criminal Contempt Petition No. 1/1998 reads as under:
'..Dainik Agradoot 13.12.1997
Suddenly ill, Mahanta takes medical certificates.
It has surprised several doctors here that the Chief Minister who frequents New Delhi, has suddenly decided to treat himself at a local nursing home here. That too in a formal manner. This evening at around 6.30 P.M. the Chief Minister, Shri Prafulla Kr. Mahanta,along with his band of security persons arrived at the N.L. Nursing Home and Diagnostic Centre situated near ABC at the Shillong Guwahati road. He went for a check-up with full documents. Dr. Sarajini Dutta Choudhury issued him a certificate saying he was affected with Diabetes and prescribed him with medicines. The nursing homes registration book also had Mahanta's name and signature. It may be mentioned that Dr. Dutta Choudhury is the Associate Professor of the Guwahati Medical College. It was a surprise to why a Government Doctor had openly examined Shri Mahanta at a private nursing home.
A Dispur source said that Mahanta's check-up was purely for political reasons. Since that his name would feature in the CBI Charge-sheet, Mahanta had taken this precautionary measure. This has became a regular future for LOC charge-sheeted politicians. This was done by Laloo Prasad Yadav, Sukhram and Kalpanath Rai also.
A source form Dispur also said that this mounting tension about the possibility of his name being featured in CBI charge sheet, has taken its tall on his health. Hence, he has cancelled his two-day trip to the Barak Valley. In fact, the Rural Development Minister Sahidul Alam Chouhdury is already in Silchar for the last four days to oversee the Chief Minister's visit.
5. Further, the identical Article also published in the Assamese local dally '..Ajir Batori' on 13.12.1997. It is the subject-matter of criminal Original Petition (C) No.2/98. It reads as under:
'Ajir Batori 13.12.1997
Battalion guest house 'Suhasini gets ready Jail gets a white wash Jail ready to welcome LOC linked politicians
The Guwahati Jail is suddenly getting a facelift, famous for its stinking and darty (sic) atmosphere, the Jail is getting a white wash new labourers are working round the clock. Jail authorities are sure that by January 15th a few politicians will come here as guests. It might also include Chief Minister Prafulla Kumar Mahanta.
Confirmed that the LOC charge-sheet will conclude the Chief Minister's name, the Jail authorities are pulling on with troit preparation. The CBI's list not only include the Chief Minister Mahanta, but also former Minister Nakul Das, B.P. Telenga, Dilip Saikia etc. The jail authorities are meanwhile confirmed about the newspaper reports.
If in case the CBI arrests the petitioners, the jail authorities areworking out plans to face that too. Hence it has become necessary to clean the jails before that happens.
Talks are also on about the politicians being kept at other locations after such arrest. Laloo Prasad Yadav was kept at the Military Police No. 5 block. Based on that the politicians of Assam may be kept at the 4th Assam Police Battalion. Kanilipara guest house 'Subasini'. In the past, journalist Ajit Kr. Bhuyan was kept here also. Suggestions are coming in this regard from various fields. The name of the No. 1 Guest House is also being featured. But the facilities of the guest house being like a five star hotel, and because the politicians are arrested for amassing huge wealth, it is decided not to kept them there.
In case the Chief Minister and other senior politicians are kept in the State Jail, they have to share the cells along with regular thieves and dacoits.
On the other hand, the anticipatory bail application of Nakul Das was being considered by the Gauhati High Court and Sri Das has also approached a top doctor. In the meantime he has procured a certificate from the doctor. In the meantime he has procured a certificate from the doctor saying that he is critically ill. On the basis of this application the LOC charge-sheeted politicians have appeared for anticipatory bail.
6. The sole question that arises for determination in the aforesaid two Criminal Contempt Petitions, therefore rests on whether the aforesaid publication attract the ingredients of Criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (in short Act).
7. Section 2(c) of the Act define Criminal Contempt. It reads:
'...Criminal Contempt' means the publication (whether bywords. spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter 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) prejudices, or interferences or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstruct or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;
8. A cursory reading of the definition, it clearly posits that in order to draw a Criminal Contempt Proceeding for any act done or writing or bypublication or by words, spoken or written or by visible representation, or otherwise must fulfil the condition precedents i.e to say-
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court.
(ii) prejudices, or interferes, or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceedings, or
(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner;
In other words any act done or writing published which is calculated to bring a court or a Judge into contempt, or lower his authority, or to interfere with the due course of justice or scandalises or tends to scandalise or the lawful process of the court is a criminal contempt of the Court.
9. A reading of the aforesaid two articles as quoted above, as a whole, in our considered view, the article so published does not attract the ingredients of the definition of Criminal Contempt as defined U/S 2(c) of the Act. At the time of hearing of the aforesaid two petitions, we repeatedly requested learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to show us as to which part of the article attract ingredients of criminal contempt as defined under the Act. We failed to get any answer. On the other hand, a reading of article as a whole, there is no reference/inference of the Authority of the Court nor any such intention or interferes or tends to interfere scandalises or tends to scandalise the dignity and authority of the Court nor interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of judicial proceeding. There was not even a slightest reference which would constitute scandalises, prejudices or lowering the dignity of the court or interferes with the due course of judicial proceeding.
10. Mr. A.S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner, has referred to the statements made in paragraph 8 of the petition. Paragraph 8 reads :
'.. That the petitioner begs to state that the aforesaid matter regarding Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.), investigation into the letter of credit (L.O.C.) scandal in the state is monitored by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in a public Interest Litigation (P.I.L.) being civil Rule No. 6083 of 1996 filed by Shri M.K. Saikia. The said Civil Rule is pending before this Hon'ble High Court for final disposal.
Statements made in paragraph 8 of the petition does not in any way make out a Criminal Contempt. Civil Rule No. 6083/96 wasfiled by one M.K. Saikia, advocate in the form of public interest Litigation seeking a writ of Mandamus to refer LOC cases to C.B.I, for an impartial enquiry. During the pendency of the civil Rule C.B.I, took over the investigation and therefore the aforesaid civil Rule was disposed of as infructuous. Therefore, it cannot be said that the publication was intended to interfere with the authority of the court in pending civil Rule No. 6083/96. The Articles so published did not even infer the pendency of Civil Rule before the High Court. Therefore, the pendency of the aforesaid Civil Rules and the publication of the Article has no relevancy at all.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the statements made in paragraph 10 of the petition, it reads:
'.. That the petitioner begs to state that he has not done anything wrong to warrant inclusion of his name in the charge sheet which is going to be filed by the C.B.I, and also in the report thereof. Till date, the petitioner's name does not figure at all in the charge sheets and reports submitted by the C.B.I, investigating into the LOC scandal, relating to various treasuries and other departments in the State.
.....'
12. Counsel for the petitioner further referred to statements made in paragraph 26 of the petition. It reads:
'.. That the petitioner begs to state that the opposite parties in the said news items have brought in by analogy, the names of S/Shri Laloo Prasad Yadav, Sukhram and Kalpanath Rai, to project the view that the petitioner is likely to be arrested just like them. According g to the opposite parties, the prosecution of the petition is imminent because his name would feature in the C.B.I, charge sheet and to avoid this, the petitioner went for a check-up and obtained medical certificate which was also done by Laloo Prasad Yadav, Sukhram and Kalpanath Rai. Therefore, the aforesaid news item published by the opposite parties in their daily newspaper amounts to a contempt of court because in all the circumstance existing at the date of publication, the said news item was intended or calculated to prejudice fair hearing of the proceedings, in the Civil Rule, mentioned hereinabove.
.....'
13. It must be grasped that the Criminal contempt is a conduct of contest which is directed against the dignity and authority of the Court and the Court alone and nobody else. A reading of the articles along with the statements made in paragraphs 8, 10 and 26 as referred above, if at all any cause is made out it was directed againstan individual for which he has an alternative remedy available to him under the law. But by no stretch of imagination such publication or the statements made in paragraphs 8, 10 and 26 of the petition attract the ingredients of Criminal Contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act.
14. Mr. A.S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the following decisions, may we say, against our repeated advise.
'1. AIR 1932 Madras 26 Sathappa Chettiar v. C Rama Chandra Naidu.
2. AIR 1958 Pubjan 273, Rao Haranarain Singh Sheoji v. Gumeni Ram Arya
3. AIR 1960 Patna 140 Kedar Prasad Sinha & anr v. State of Bihar & ors.
4. AIR 1070 SC 1694 A.K. Gopalan & anr v. Noordeen
5. AIR 1970 SC 1821 re. P.C. Sen
6. 2000 (1) GLR 96 Nabin Ch Kalita v. State of Assam & ors.
7. AIR 1914 PC 116 Channing Arnold v. King Emperor
8. AIR 1983 Cal 118 Tushar Kanti Ghosh v. Governor of Bengal in Council
9. 1954 (1) All ER 1026 R v. Evening Standard Co. Ltd.
10. AIR 1955 Orissa 169 The State v. Biswanath Mahapatra
11. AIR 1955 M.B. 183 L.S. Sukla v. Iswar Ch. Jain
12. AIR 1957 Alhabad 457 Rahmat Ali v. Beni Madho Baijpal
In all the aforesaid decisions referred to by the counsel for the petitioner were referable to the publication or written involving the authority and dignity of the court which would attract the ingredients of Criminal Contempt as defined Under Section 2(c) of the Act. We have already hold that in the present case such publication does not attract the ingredients of Criminal Contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Act. We accordingly of the clear view that the decision cited by the counsel for the petitioner is not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
In the result, no Criminal Contempt is made out and these two Petitions are accordingly dismissed as meritless.