1 conp-6-09.sxw dgm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 6 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3643 OF 2008 Palus Shikshak Prasarak Mandal Palus .... Petitioner vs Dhondiram Pratap Shinde & ors. .... Respondents Mr. S. G. Deshmukh for the petitioner. Mr. Sandesh Deshpande i/by Mr. Vikas Mahanagare for respondent no.1. Mr. J. P. Yagnik, APP for the State. Mr. Madhav Jamdar with Mr. Subhash Jadhav i/by ALMT Legal for respondents 4 and 5. Mr. H. E. Palwe for respondent no.6. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 27th July, 2010 P.C.: This contempt petition arises out of the news published in a leading Marathi newspaper by name “Sakal” dated 12.06.2008 (Sangli Edition). 2 Writ Petition No.3643 of 2008 had come up before the learned Single Judge against the order passed by the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Sangli on 30.05.2008. On 10.06.2008 when the Writ Petition No.3643/2008 was heard by the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 had sought time and made a statement that the resolution passed by the General Body Meeting would not be given effect to in the meanwhile. However, on 2 conp-6-09.sxw 12.06.2008, the subject news published in Sakal gave a contrary version and stated that the Writ Petition No.3643/2008 was dismissed by this Court and fresh elections were directed to be held within one month. As per the petitioner, the publication of this false news was deliberate and intended to mislead the members of the petitioner­society and thus it was a case for criminal contempt as defined under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 3 On issuing notice, the respondents 1, 4 and 6 have filed affidavits in reply. Respondent no.1 is the member of the petitioner/society and he was present before this Court when the order dated 10.06.2008 was passed in Writ Petition No.3643/2008. Respondent no.4 is the reporter of Sakal newspaper, who had published the news. He has filed an affidavit in reply and he is present before us today. As per the affidavit in reply, on 10.06.2008 he was contacted by respondent no.1 on the cell phone of Shri Virendra Pawar (Mobile No.98906 57007) and information was given to him about the order passed on 10.06.2008 by this Court. He further states that the news was published as per the information given by respondent no.1 and after it was published, he alleges that respondent no.1 told him that it was a false information. Respondent no.1 in his affidavit in reply has clearly denied the allegations made by respondent no.4 and stated that he had never given any written or oral information to respondent no.4, who is reporter of the Sakal newspaper. He further stated that he was present on 10.06.2008 and he was aware of the order passed by the learned Single Judge. He also says that he did not know the said reporter and had never met him. 3 conp-6-09.sxw 4 Be that as it may, respondent no.4 has placed before us a written unconditional apology for publishing an incorrect and wrong news regarding the order passed by this Court on 10.06.2008 and published in Sakal newspaper on 12.06.2008 (Sangli Edition) at his instance. He further states that the news was published on an incorrect and false information and, therefore, he has tendered an unconditional apology for causing inconvenience to the public at large as well as this Court and he had no intention whatsoever to do so while the said news was prepared and inserted in the issue of 12.06.2008. 5 So far as respondent no.6 is concerned, though he is a group leader of the rival group and an aged person of 82 years old, in his affidavit in reply he clearly stated that he had neither briefed respondent no.4 nor he had ever asked respondent no.1 to get such a news published. It is true that respondent no.1 in his affidavit has stated that it is respondent no.6 who briefs the Press on behalf of the group and that had been the past practice. However, it is not the case of respondent no.1 that the subject news was published at the behest or as instructed by respondent no.6. 6 We are, therefore, satisfied that it is respondent no.1, who is responsible for publication of false and fabricated news in the Sakal newspaper (Sangli Edition) dated 12.06.2008. However, as per the proviso below Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the court and an apology shall not be rejected merely on the ground that it is qualified or 4 conp-6-09.sxw conditional if the accused makes it bonafide. 7 The apology tendered by respondent no.1 today is an unconditional apology and he has admitted that he is responsible for the incorrect and false news published on 12.06.2008 in the Sakal newspaper. The tenor of the unconditional apology appears to be bonafide and there is no reason to reject the same. 8 Hence, we accept the unconditional apology tendered by respondent no.1 and discharge him from this contempt petition solely on the basis of the said apology. 9 So far as respondents 4 and 6 are concerned, we do not find any substance to hold them guilty of a criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 10 The contempt petition is disposed off in the above terms. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) ( B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)