District and Sessions Judge Vs. Deelip Balaram Bedekar and anr. - Court Judgment

Vishnu Sahai, J.

1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Alleged Contemner No. 1 Deelip Balaram Bedekar, an Advocate, is present in the Court, as directed by us vide our order dated 10-7-2001. By the said order, we have granted exemption from personal appearance to alleged Contemner No. 2 Nishikant Anant Bhalerao for today.

2. The factual matrix in which this contempt petition arises in brief is as under.

On 11-2-1997, Mr. B.R. Chaudhary, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, made a Reference, through the District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, to the Registrar, High Court (Appellate Side), Bombay, under Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') that action be taken against Deelip Balaram Bedekar, an Advocate, for committing the offence of criminal contempt as defined in Section 2(c) of the said Act.

The circumstances in which the said Reference was made were as under.

There was a Summary Criminal Case, bearing No. 347 of 1994 (Nandlal Gobindram Gunwani versus Deelip Balaram Bedekar) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, wherein Deelip Balaram Bedekar, alleged Contemner No. 1 was an accused and was convicted by him vide order dated 8-4-1996. Incensed by the said conviction, Deelip Bedekar preferred Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 1996 (Deelip Bedekar v. Nandlal Gunwani), which at the time of the Reference was pending in the Sessions Court at Aurangabad. (We are informed that it is still pending.) During the pendency of the said appeal, Deelip Bedekar filed a criminal case against the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, being Regular Criminal Cc.se No. 2 of 1997 (Deelip Bedekar v. Chaudhari, Chief Judicial Magistrate), which was dismissed on 31-1-1997 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No. 14, Aurangabad. The said criminal case was instituted upon a complaint filed by Deelip Bedekar before the said Court, and in his statement recorded under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the burden of song of Deelip Bedekar was that the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mr. Chaudhari, was passed on extraneous considerations. This was published in the issue dated 9-1-1997 of a local daily, 'Apala Mahanagar'.

This was the background in which the said Reference was made to this Court by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad. In the Reference, it has been specifically mentioned that action be taken against Deelip Bedekar for committing the offence of criminal contempt as defined by Section 2(c) of the said Act.

3. On the basis of the said Reference, Criminal Contempt Petition No. 8 of 1997 was registered and vide orders dated 20-9-2000, a Division Bench of this Court (S.B. Mhase and A.S. Bagga, JJ.) directed that appropriate notice be issued to Contemner Deelip Balaram Bedekar who was present in Court of his own accord.

On 5-10-2000, this Contempt Petition again came up before the said Bench and Their Lordships felt that since the news item published by 'Apala Mahanagar' on 9th January 1997 was, prima facie, contemptuous, it was necessary to issue notices to the Editor and Publisher of the said Newspaper, Nishikant Bhalerao. They directed the Additional Registrar to issue notices to him returnable on 7-11-2000.

After the service of the notice, both the alleged contemners Deelip Bedekar and Nishikant Bhalerao put in appearance in this Court through Advocates. The former engaged Mr. S.A. Deshmukh, and the latter Mr. V.G. Sakolkar and Mrs. Rita Pandey. In this Court, both of them filed affidavits. Nishikant Bhalerao filed an affidavit dated 8th March, 2001 and Deelip Bedekar filed two affidavits dated 10th July, 2001 and 27th July, 2001 respectively.

4. In his affidavit dated 8th March, 2001, Nishikant Bhalerao stated that believing Mr. Bedekar, who was an Advocate, he published the said news. He also stated therein that he be pardoned for not verifying the correctness of the contents published in the newspaper and tendered his unconditional apology and prayed that he be discharged.

In his affidavit dated 17th July, 2001, Deelip Bedekar expressed his contriteness and repentance for making allegations against the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, and averred that he had no intention to commit contempt or to show disrespect to the Court. He has stated therein that he is tendering un-conditional, genuine and sincere apology. He has also mentioned therein that on account of family disturbances and losing mental balance, he acted in the manner in which he did. He has reiterated therein that he has the highest regard for judiciary and Courts and he unconditionally withdraws the averments made by him in his verification of the complaint (statement under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). In paragraph 6 of this affidavit, he has stated that his unconditional apology be accepted.

5. The first question which arises is whether the alleged contemners Deelip Bedekar and Nishikant Bhalerao are guilty of the offence of criminal contempt as defined in Section 2(c) of the said Act. Section 2(c) of the said Act reads thus :-

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) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or

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

A perusal of the said provision would show that if a person scandalises or tends to scandalise or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any Court, through publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs or visible representations or otherwise), he would be guilty of the offence of criminal contempt.

6. We make no bones in observing that the averment made by Deelip Bedekar in his statement under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which in terms is that the judgment passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mr. Chaudhari, was passed on extraneous considerations, undoubtedly, scandalises, tends to scandalise, lowers and tends to lower the dignity of the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, and, therefore, Deelip Bedekar would be guilty of the offence of criminal contempt under Section 2(c) of the said Act.

We also make no bones in observing that since Nishikant Bhalerao published thd said averments in the issue dated 9th January, 1997 in the daily newspaper 'Apala Mahanagar', he would also be guilty of the said offence.

7. We hold that both Deelip Bedekar and Nishikant Bhalerao are guilty for having committed the offence of criminal contempt as defined by Section 2(c) of the said Act.

8. The question with which we are left is the quantum of punishment, which should be imposed on the contemners.

Section 12 of the said Act provides that:

(1)...a contempt of Court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both :

Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court.

Explanation.- An apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or conditional if the accused makes it bona fide.

A perusal of the said provision would show that a person guilty of contempt of Court may be punished in the following manner:-

(a) with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months: or

(b) with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees; or

(c) with both.

It would also show that it would be open to the Court to discharge the accused or remit the punishment awarded to him on apology being made to its satisfaction and that an apology would not be merely rejected on the ground that it is qualified or conditional, provided it is bona fide.

9. Learned counsel for both the condemners strenuously urged that in view of the contriteness and repentance expressed by the Contemners in their affidavits, the ends of justice would be satisfied if the unconditional apology tendered by the condemners is accepted and the notices issued against them are discharged. We have reflected over their submission and make no bones in observing that we are not inclined to accept it.

It should be borne in mind that the majesty of law has to be maintained and it has to be ensured that the faith of the common man in Courts is sustained. If a soft view is taken in cases such as the instant, where, per se, contumacious statements are made by a losing party in a litigation, who in this case is an Advocate, who is expected to respect the majesty of law and the dignity of Court, and such statements are thoughtlessly published by newspapers, the faith of the common man in the Judiciary would be eroded. And that, indeed, would be distressing. It is on account of this reason that we are not prepared to accept the unconditional apology set forth by the Contemners in their affidavits.

10. The question is whether in the instant case, a sentence of imprisonment or a sentence of fine or both would meet the ends of justice. It is true, as we have seen earlier, that Section 12 of the said Act gives an option to the Court to choose from any of the aforesaid three sentences. But we make no bones in observing that, normally a sentence of fine should be imposed and a sentence of imprisonment should be restricted to the 'rarest of rare' cases, wherein the contumacious act is, per se, so gross and reprehensible that a sentence of fine would be wholly disproportionate to its gravity. To put it differently, a sentence of fine should be a rule and imprisonment an exception.

We are fortified in our view by the decision of the Supreme Court reported in : 1979CriLJ960 (Smt. Pushpabenv. Narandas Badiani). Paragraph 6 of the said decision reads thus :-

A close and careful interpretation of the extracted section leaves no room for doubt that the legislature intended that a sentence of fine alone should be imposed in normal circumstances. The statute, however, confers special power on the Court to pass a sentence of imprisonment if it thinks that ends of justice so require. Thus before a Court passes the extreme sentence of imprisonment, it must give special reasons after a proper application of its mind that a sentence of imprisonment alone is called for in a particular situation. Thus, the sentence of imprisonment is an exception while sentence of fine is the rule.

11. In our judgment, this case cannot be put in the pigeonhole of 'rarest of rare' cases.

A perusal of the affidavit dated 17th July, 2001 filed by Contemner Deelip Bedekar would show that on account of family disturbances, he lost his mental balance and acted the way he did. He has averred therein that he has the highest respect for Courts. He has expressed therein his contriteness and repentance and has also mentioned that he unconditionally withdraws the averments made by him in his statement under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

A perusal of the affidavit filed by Nishikant Anant Bhalerao shows that, believing the news furnished by Contemner Deelip Bedekar to be true and without verifying its correctness, he made the contumacious publication. It appears that without realising the consequences of what he was publishing and, believing Deelip Bedekar, he made the said publication.

In our view, bearing in mind the averments contained in the affidavits of the contemners, the instant case does not warrant the imposition of jail sentence on the contemners and the majesty of law and the dignity of the Court would be maintained if they are sentenced in the manner stated in paragraph 12.

12. In the result, we find Deelip Balaram Bedekar and Nishikant Anant Bhalerao guilty of the offence of criminal contempt, as defined by Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. We sentence Deelip Balaram Bedekar to pay a fine of Rupees l,000/-, in default to suffer Section 1. for two months and Nishikant Anant Bhalerao to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer Section 1. for one month. The fine shall be deposited by the contemners within a period of one month from today in the office of the Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Bench, who shall accept it on production of a certified copy of this judgment, which, in case an application is made by the counsel for the parties, shall be issued within one week from the date from which it is made.