1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SUO MOTU CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NOS. 1 AND 2 OF 2008. SUO MOTU CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 1 OF 2008 - .. Petitioners. Versus. 1. Mr. B. S. Brar, Director General of Police, State of Goa, Panaji, Goa. 2. Mr. Manish Sadanand Karapurkar Editor, The Times of India, Goa Edition, Vivenda de Hassan, D.B.Bandodkar Marg, Miramar, Panaji, Goa. .. Respondents Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mrs. R. Chodankar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1 Mr. Sanjog S. Parab with Mr. S. M. Singbal, Advocate for the respondent No.2. WITH SUO MOTU CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 2 OF 2008 - .. Petitioners. Versus. 1. Mr. Bosco George, Superintendent of Police (North) Panaji, Goa. 2. Mr. Ashwin Tombat, 2 Editor, O Heraldo, St.Tome Road, Panaji, Goa. .. Respondents Mr. S. S. Kantak, Advocate General with Mrs. R. Chodankar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.1 Mr. Sanjog S. Parab with Mr. S. M. Singbal, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Coram :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & R. C. CHAVAN, JJ. Date : 15 th September, 2008. ORAL ORDER : ( PER S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) 1. These petitions were entertained on the basis of the letters addressed to the Registrar of this Court by the Hon'ble Chairman of the Goa State Police Complaint Authority. 2. The Chairman has pointed out that a case was filed against two respondents, who are Police Officers. Another case was also filed against P.S.I. being S.P.C.A. No.19/2007 but he remained present. The authority issued notice for recording of the evidence of the complainant and for appearance of the respondents, so also cross-examination of the complainant and witnesses. Naturally, the authority sought assistance of the Police stations and the concerned Police Officers for service. It appears that on the date returnable, the respective officers could not 3 cross-examine the witnesses because they were either not served with notice nor supplied with the affidavits of evidence of the complainant, which had been sent to the office of Director General of Police with notices. Upon queries as to how the officers are appearing, the reply was given that they were intimated about the dates of the hearing. Since the officers appeared but were handicapped for want of documents, the matters were adjourned. The complaint is with regard to some objectionable and intemperate language used by the authorities in the written reply forwarded by one of the police officers. A cognizance was taken by this Court of the complaint vide order dated 30.4.2008. The proceedings were treated as Suo Motu Contempt Petition and the concerned Officers tendered an apology to the Court and to the authority as well. The authority has stated that apology could not be accepted and more particularly in the light of further non-cooperation by the Department. 3. The authority by another letter dated 18.6.2008 through its Chairman invited our attention to news article in the Times of India, Goa Edition dated 18.6.2008 and has complained that the allegations made by the Director General of Police against the authority, are false and malicious. The news articles refers to leakage of confidential letter addressed by D.G.P. to the Chief Secretary and this according to the Chairman of the Authority, was a deliberate attempt to sensationalise 4 the issue. Thus, the Public Complaint Authority's functioning was made issue by the Director General of Police and the grievance of the Chairman is that if the highest officer is taking this stand, then, the authority cannot expect assistance and cooperation in deciding the complaints. 4. It was brought to our attention that the authority is set up by the State pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India to take cognizance of complaints against police authorities. In such circumstances, the letters of the Hon'ble Chairman were placed before this Court on 24.6.2008 and this Court directed issuance of notice to the Director General of Police and the concerned publications. That is how the present Suo Moto Contempt Petitions. 5. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by both Respondents and apart from objection with regard to maintainability of the petition on the ground that the authority is not a “Court” within the meaning of Contempt of Court Act, 1971, in the alternative, it is contended that the communication was like any another Departmental communication and confidential. The letter was addressed by D.G.P. with bonafide intention and in good faith in order to bring certain facts to the notice of the Government and, therefore, it is not as if the communication was intended in any manner to prejudice or interfere with the functioning of 5 the authority. Our attention has been invited to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prakashsing and Others Versus Union of India and others reported in 2006 (8) SCC 1, whereunder, certain directions were issued to the State and rather all State Governments to constitute Police Complaint Authority to look into the complaints against the officers ranked as Superintendent of Police and above. Goa Government has constituted the authority on 3.4.2008. The Director General of Police in his affidavit dated 19.8.2008, in para 11 contended as under : “I sincerely regret the inconvenience caused on account of my communication which was otherwise a confidential communication and made with bonafide intention. The letter was unfortunately leaked to the press. I say that I am in no way responsible for the leakage of the letter. ” 6. When this matter was argued for some time before us, the learned Advocate General appearing for the Director General of Police sought time to place on record further affidavit, which was granted. Para 2 and 3 of the further affidavit dated 20.8.2008 reads thus : “ 2. I say that I have the highest respect for SPCA which has been constituted by State Government pursuant to the direction of Hon'ble Supreme Court. 3. I say that I have not done any act nor shall I do any act which brings into question the Authority of SPCA. In 6 fact it is my endure to ensure and lend all possible cooperation to the Authority to enable it to discharge its functions efficiently.” 7. The respondent No.2 Printer and Publisher of the Times of India, Goa Edition has also filed an affidavit and urged that no contempt has been committed. All that is done to bonafide place version of both the authorities before the public. This was a matter of public news that is why after verifying the facts from the concerned authorities, the publication was made. The said printer in para 8 of the affidavit has stated thus : “I further respectfully submit that publication of the article was based on the facts and reliable information in it's normal course of reporting and honest journalism in public interest by The Times of India in its issue dated 18th June, 2008. Further the said article was a fair, accurate and unbiased report and therefore, publishing of the said article cannot be construed such as that which interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any manner. ” 8. The Suo Motu Criminal Contempt Petition No.2 of 2008 is pertaining to another publication in a newspaper published by respondent No.2. 9. There, respondent No.1, Superintendent of Police, Panaji, 7 Goa has filed an affidavit and it is pointed out to us now that he has tendered an apology. 10. Considering the statements made by the Director General of Police, it would be appropriate to close the proceedings. The matter need not be pursued further in the light of the statements made and the assurance of the learned Advocate General that all cooperation will be rendered to the authority while it is functioning. The authority being set up by the Government in pursuance of the directions of the Supreme Court of India, it is expected that all concerned would render complete and faithful assistance to the same. The authority is presided over by a retired Judge of this Court. We hope and trust that in the light of the above clarification and statements on affidavits, there will be no occasion for the Chairman, in future to address any communication to this Court or make any grievance with regard to alleged non- cooperation of the police authorities. The Director General of Police, namely, the highest police functionary in the State has assured that the authority would be given all cooperation by him personally and by the department in general. 11. It is well settled that power under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is to be exercised sparingly. Power is not to be exercised merely because there is some grievance raised with regard to non- 8 cooperation by parties to a Court of Law. The power is exercised in the facts and circumstances of individual cases and to uphold the majesty of the Court and rule of law. It is not as if the Judicial Officers take any pleasure in making complaints. However, when a Judicial Officer is appointed and is handling sensitive cases such as complaints against the police authorities, there is nothing unreasonable, if he expects full cooperation from State machinery. Now that the cooperation has been assured and everybody has taken the matter in the right interest and spirit, it is not necessary to pursue the matters and proceedings any further. We close the matter without deciding any larger issue and in the light of the statements made on affidavits, the petitions are disposed of. We specifically keep open the contentions with regard to maintainability of such action at the instance of authority like S.P.C.A. We have not decided rival contentions with regard to its status or issued any declaration that it is a “Court” within the meaning of Contempt of Court Act, 1971. All pleas in that behalf are kept open. Petitions disposed off. S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J R. C. CHAVAN, J SMA