1 CONP 6.08.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CONTEMP PETITION NO. 6 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 693 OF 2008 The Chief Promoter, Pandharpur Dudh Utpadak Prakriya Sangh Ltd. ... Petitioner. V/s. Shri Kantilal Hamnant Kale & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Vivek Salunkhe i/b. P.B. Shah for the Petitioner. Mr. R.S. Ghadge i/b. A.S. Desai for Respondent No.1. Mrs. Neha Palshikar Bhide for Respondent No.2. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATED : 11th AUGUST 2011. P.C. :- Heard. 2. By an order dated 16.4.2010, this Court issued notice to Respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. The Petitioner states that the present Petitioner is a Chief Promoter of Proposed Pandharpur Taluka Dudh Utpadak Prakriya Sangh. The Petitioner had submitted a proposal for registration of Sangh at the same time Respondent Kantilal Hanmant Kale had also submitted a proposal. By an order 2 CONP 6.08.sxw dated 19.9.2006, the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Milk) granted primary permission in favour of the Petitioner for collection of milk and to open a bank account. Against the order of granting permission, Respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies (Milk) Worli, Mumbai on 5th November 2007. The Joint Registrar granted ad-interim stay to the said order on 27th December 2007. By an order dated 3rd January 2008, stay was vacated. Being aggrieved by the said order, Respondent No.1 filed Writ Petition bearing Writ Petition No.693 of 2008 in the High Court. By an order dated 4th February 2008, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the Joint Registrar, Co- operative Societies to dispose of Appeal No.42 of 2007 filed by Respondent No.1 expeditiously and within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The Petitioner further avers that a news item appeared in the newspaper on 6th February 2008, having a distorted version of the order passed by the High Court. The news item contained that the order passed on 27th December 2007 has been restored by the High Court on 4th February 2008. The news item was published in the news paper of Respondent No.2 on 6th February 2008. 4. Consequent to the notice issued, Respondent No.2 filed reply. 5. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by Respondent No.1 in the month of September 2010 it is contended that Respondent No.1 was never interviewed by any Reporter and neither he 3 CONP 6.08.sxw reported anything about the alleged article. It is stated that the article was published without knowledge of Respondent No.1 and for that he shall not be held responsible. Respondent No.2 stated in paragraphs 7 and 8 as under :- “7. With reference to paragraph 8 the contents thereof are denied. I say that the Respondent No.2 in his capacity as an editor of the daily Lokmat merely tried to narrate the order passed by this Hon’ble Court. This Respondent is in no way concerned with the Petitioner or the Respondent No.1 and therefore, no malafide intention can be attributed to this Respondent. It is submitted that mere publication of news article cannot cause interference and obstruction in the administration of justice as the said news article cannot be said to scandalise, lower the authority of this Hon’ble Court. The said news article also does not prejudice or interferes with the due course of any proceeding. 8. With reference to paragraph 9 the contents thereof are vehemently denied. At the cost of repetition, it is submitted that the only act this Respondent may be guilty of, if at all, is incorrect interpretation of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court. This Respondent tenders an unconditional apology for the same and most humbly states that this Respondent never intended the said article to be in violation of any of the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court.” 4 CONP 6.08.sxw 6. Respondent No.2 at the first instance tendered unconditional apology to this Court. The Respondent clarified that said article was published on the basis of a press note submitted to Pandharpur Office by Respondent No.1 herein. Copy of the said press note is also placed on record. Respondent No.2 stated that in his capacity as an editor of daily ‘Lokmat’ he merely tried to narrate the order passed by the High Court. There was no malafide intention on the part of the Respondent. It is submitted that mere publication of news item cannot cause interference and obstruction in the administration of justice or to scandalise, lower the authority of the Court. The Respondent No.1 filed reply at the first instance. It was submitted that Respondent No.1 had no intention to defame the Petitioner and publish defamatory matter which would cause damages to the Petitioner. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 tendered unconditional apology to the Court. 7. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that a distorted version of the order passed by the High Court came to be published in the newspaper and according to the reply filed by Respondent No.2, Respondent No.1 had provided material for publication under his signature. The learned Counsel therefore submits that it emerges from the record that the Respondents – Contemnors had deliberately distorted the order passed by the High Court and published false news deliberately to misled public at large. Therefore, they shall be 5 CONP 6.08.sxw held guilty for committing contempt of court and be punished accordingly. 8. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that though in initial reply filed by Respondent No.1, correct statement could not emerge in respect of written material provided by Respondent No.1 to the Respondent No.2 – Editor but subsequently, by filing additional affidavit-in-reply it is clarified that inadvertently, a document was got signed by the Petitioner and the same was provided to Respondent No.2. 9. The learned Counsel further submits that Respondent No.1 is illiterate person. He is not keeping good health. He had attended Court dates regularly. He is even today present before the Court. Considering the facts of the case and the remorse expressed by Respondent No.1, apology tendered by Respondent No.1 be accepted and the notice be discharged. 10. The learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 submits that it is clear from the record now that on the basis of information provided in writing by Respondent No.1, Respondent No.2 published the news item in the newspaper solely based on the written communication made by Respondent No.1. Learned Counsel submits that Respondent No.2 had no intention to interfere in the course of administration of justice. The learned Counsel submits that Respondent No.2 expressed deepest remorse by tendering unconditional apology to this Court. 6 CONP 6.08.sxw 11. We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the material placed before us. 12. We do find that the Respondent No.1 at the first instance tried to explain the circumstances which resulted in publication of news item which was admittedly a distorted version of order passed by this Court. 13. Later on, Respondent No.1 filed additional affidavit-in- reply and tried to explain that the written communication which was supplied to Respondent No.2 under his signature was signed inadvertently. He was illiterate. Therefore, by accepting unconditional apology, the Court may sympathetically deal with the matter. 14. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel that the Respondent No.1 is not keeping well. He has attended all the dates regularly. He is present before the Court even today. He expressed his remorse. 15. We are of the view that while reporting the orders of the Court, the Respondents ought to have maintained caution and reasonable vigilance but considering the facts of the case and the explanation tendered by the Respondents, we find that instead of punishing Respondent No.1 for the act committed, we accept the unconditional apology tendered by Respondent No.1. 7 CONP 6.08.sxw 16. Both the Respondents have tendered unconditional apology. We are not inclined to proceed any further in the matter. The notice of Contempt therefore stands discharged. The Petition is disposed of. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.)