Case: Vishwa Development Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan

KULDIP SINGH, J.Vishwa Dev Sharma and Anand Dev Sharma were convicted under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short the Act) by the Rajasthan High Court. They were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. This appeal under section 19 of the Act has been filed by Vishwa Dev Sharma against the judgment of the High Court dated September 8, 19922. The appellant is the editor of a Hindi daily newspaper called "Nyaya" which is published in three editions from Ajmer, Jaipur and Alwar. An article titled "From the Court precincts" was published on October 6, 1987 in the Jaipur edition of the paper. The article was written be a freelance journalist Anand Sharma. The English version of the article is reproduced in the impugned judgment of the High Court. We have been taken through the judgment of the High Court including the contents of the article. We are, of the view that the contents of the article are on the face of it contemptuous and, as such, the High Court was justified in convicting the appellant under the Act. The High Court in its judgment commented upon the article in the following terms :- "The article in question makes its start in a very sarcastic manner by pin-pointing Justice Vinod Shanker Dave against whose impartiality and judicial integrity fingers are said to be raised. Even the company of a Judge with Justice Dave is stated to be a starting point of degradation of that Judge. What can be more contemptuous and outrageous than mentioning in the article that company of Justice Dave can convert even a godly man into a "devil" within a short span of time. Anand Sharma further wrote that on account of justice S.C. Agarwal acting on the indications of Justice Dave, the judgeship of Supreme Court which was at the door-step of Justice Agarwal has now become only a dreamIt has next been said that Justice Dave become ready to accept the interim bail application of Mohan Lal accused because his junior Shri Biri Singh, Advocate, was conducting the case on behalf of Mohan Lal There is further the allegation in the article that as Justice Guman Mal Lodha was acquiring fame on account of his various steps to make available cheap and quick justice, a Full Bench of Justice Agarwal, Justice Kasliwal and Justice Dave issued a restraint order against the treating of a letter as writ petition by any Judge. It is said that there was politics in the High Court and its polarisation." The High Court finally observed as under :- "The whole trend, tenor and content of the article tend to shake the confidence of the public in the High Court and leads the public to believe that even the High Court, one is highly doubtful of getting justice." * 3. The appellant in his reply filed before the High Court, stated that he was aged about 70 years and was suffering from heart problems. Due to his illness he was confined to the city of Ajmer and had not been going out of Ajmer except for unavoidable reasons. The article was published in the Jaipur edition and, as such, he was unaware about the same as he was residing most of the time at Ajmer. He further stated that Anand Sharma was not an employee of the newspaper. The appellant regretted the publication of the article and tendered unconditional apology before the High Court 4. Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the appellant is a heart patient and has undergone coronary bypass surgery. He has further stated that since 1952 when he started the newspaper it is only the present instance where an objectionable article has been published in the newspaper. Due to the appellants ill-health he has not been able to look after the day-to-day running and publishing of the newspaper for several years and the same is being done by various sub-editors in the three cities from where it is published 5. We are not inclined to interfere with the conviction of the appellant and, as such, we uphold the judgment of the High Court to that extent. Keeping in view the age, health and other facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met if instead of sentence of imprisonment, the appellant is awarded the sentence of fine.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]5. We are not inclined to interfere with the conviction of the appellant and, as such, we uphold the judgment of the High Court to that extent. Keeping in view the age, health and other facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met if instead of sentence of imprisonment, the appellant is awarded the sentence of fine.