9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (12) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ollowing prayers: (a) set aside the suspension order dated 5.7.91 and fix an early date of hearing of the contempt application No. 2743 of 1989 and the application for direction filed by the applicant earlier. (b) pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case for which act the petitioner most respectfully prays this Hon'ble Court. 4. IA Nos. 1 and 2 were filed on 12.8.1991 and 21.8.1991 respectively. It may be noted that the Contempt Petition No. 7/89 was filed in September 1989 in S.L.P. (C) No. 14014/88. 5. Even before giving the brief facts which have given rise to the filing of this Contempt Petition, we would like to mention that a confusion is created in the contempt proceeding, by wrongly mentioning it as 'Contempt Petition No. 2743/89' instead of I.A. No. 1/91 in all the follow up affiliated proceedings. 'No. 2743/89' is the number assigned to the Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed in SLP (C) No. 14014/88 which was subsequently registered as Civil Appeal No. 5412/90. The said CMP No. 2743/89 was filed by the State of Haryana and others praying for the deletion of the name of Ch. Devi Lal, Chief Minist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947. Even when the investigation was in the threshold, Ch. Bhajan Lal filed a Writ Petition No. 9172/87 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the first information report and also a writ of prohibition restraining the State of Haryana and the investigating officials from further proceeding with the investigation. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana before which the Writ Petition was filed granted exparte stay which was thereafter made absolute. After hearing the parties to the Writ Petition, the High Court concluded that the allegations made in the FIR did not constitute a cognizable offence for commencing the lawful investigation and granted the relief as prayed for and mulcted the fifth respondent therein, namely, Dharam Pal, the complainant with the costs of the writ petition. On being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the State of Haryana and others preferred SLP (Civil) No. 14014/88 which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 5412/90 on grant of leave. This Court by its judgment dated 21st November, 1990 to which both of us we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e General of Haryana whenever the SLP was fixed for hearing and that his active participation in the proceedings has caused intolerable annoyance to Ch. Bhajan Lal. The applicant further states that Ch. Bhajan Lal "in order to create a bias in his favour, and prejudice the public that he was innocent of the charge of amassing wealth by illegal and corrupt means, has issued public statements so that this Hon'ble Court does not take the serious charges of corruption against him seriously." The above statement according to the applicant amounts to gross criminal contempt of the court. In addition to the above, the following averments are made in the Contempt Petition: That the respondent Ch. Bhajan Lal who wants by hook or crook to thwart the proceedings of this Court to ensure no investigation takes places, is adopting the coercive and threatening measures, in interfering with the proceedings of this Court in the above said case. (Vide para 7 of the Contempt Petition) The matter is sub-judice before this Hon'ble Court. The applicant is not in a position and will not be able to undertake the investigation according to law if the gross contempt committed by respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with, either directly or indirectly, or obstructing, in any manner, the administration of justice. (Vide para 1 in his affidavit sworn on 6th December, 1991) The statements attributed to me in the Application for Contempt are based on newspaper reports which are mere 'hearsay' and cannot in law be relied upon for the purposes of initiating such proceedings. Even if it be assumed that the statements attributed to me were so made, it was never with the intent of committing any criminal contempt by either scandalising the Court, or tending to interfere with the course of judicial proceedings, or interfering or tending to interfere with, or obstructing, or tending to obstruct, the administration of justice. (Vide para 3) I am filing this Affidavit to obviate any doubts which may have arisen in the minds of this Hon'ble Court on the basis of the statements contained in the Application, or any doubts that may have arisen in the mind of the applicant, that I have any personal ill-will or malice against him. I consider it appropriate to place on record my lack of ill-will or malice. This should suffice and lead this Hon'ble Court to believe that the applicant in maki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and, therefore, this is a fit case in which this Court should exercise its inherent power in issuing suo moto notice to the contemner, namely, Ch. Bhajan Lal and to adequately punish him. 14. According to Mr. Kapil Sibal, this petition is not maintainable for more than one reason, those being: (1) Mr. S.A. Khan was neither the investigating officer in the case registered against Ch. Bhajan Lal nor he was a party to that criminal proceedings; (2) That the statement attributed to Ch. Bhajan Lal cannot be said to have interfered with the proceedings, then pending before this Court, since on that day (that is 30.7.1989) the First Information Report had already been quashed by the High Court and there was no stay of the order of the High Court passed by this Court. (3) In any case, there is no material on record apart from the newspaper report to show that this statement was made by Ch. Bhajan Lal. (4) At any rate, the petitioner is not competent to file this contempt petition because he was not a party to the proceedings. 15. Thereafter, Mr. Kapil Sibal drew our attention to a news item that appeared in the issue of 'Times of India' dated 21.9.89 annexed to the coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e speech amounted to contempt of Court. An appeal was filed before this Court challenging the order of the High Court submitting inter-alia that the speech contained no direct reference to any pending proceedings and the Chief Minister was under a duty to make the speech to instruct the public about the true state of affairs. But this Court while rejecting the submission made the following observations: The law relating to contempt of Court is well settled. Any act done or writing published which is calculated to bring a Court or a Judge into contempt, or to lower his authority, or to interfere with the due course of justice or the lawful process of the Court, is a contempt of Court: R. v. Gray 1900 2 Q.B.D. 36 at p. 40. Contempt by speech or writing may be by scandalising the Court itself, or by abusing parties to actions, or by prejudicing mankind in favour of or against a party before the cause is heard. It is incumbent upon courts of justice to preserve their proceedings from being misrepresented, for prejudicing the mind of the people against persons concerned as parties in causes before the cause is finally heard has pernicious consequences. Speech or writings misrepresentin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the dictum laid down by this Court in Laxmi Raj Shetty and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu , with regard to the admissibility of the news item appearing in a Press report. The dictum reads thus: We cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in a new item being in the nature of hearsay secondary evidence, unless proved by evidence aliunde. A report in a newspaper is only hearsay evidence. A newspaper is not one of the documents referred to in Section 78(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 by which an allegation of fact can be proved. The presumption of genuineness attached under Section 81 of the Evidence Act to a newspaper report cannot be treated as proved of the facts reported therein. It is now well settled that a statement of fact contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and, therefore, inadmissible in evidence in the absence of the maker of the statement appearing in Court and deposing to have perceived the fact reported. 22. In the present case, no evidence has been let in proof of the statement of facts contained in the newspaper report. The absence of any denial by Ch. Bhajan Lal will not absolve the applicant from discharging his obligation of proving the statement of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
