ORDER

1. THE APPELLANT IS A POLITICIAN AND SOCIAL WORKER. IN A SEMINAR ORGANISED BY THE INDIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION ON THE QUESTION OF THE DESIRABILITY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT TO DOCTORS, THE APPELLANT MADE A SPEECH ON 11-12-1993 AT CALCUTTA. THE NEWSPAPERS OF 12-12-1993 CARRIED THE NEWS ABOUT THE SPEECH SAID TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE SAID SEMINAR BY THE APPELLANT. DIFFERENT NEWSPAPERS CARRIED DIFFERENT VERSIONS. BENGALI NEWS DAILY BARTAMAN PUBLISHED A REPORT OF THE SAID SPEECH OF THE APPELLANT WHICH A WHEN TRANSLATED IN ENGLISH, AS QUOTED IN THE JUDGMENT UNDER APPEAL, READS AS UNDER:

"THE JUDGES DO NOT METE OUT JUSTICE. THEY DELIVER THE JUDGMENTS AT THE COURT WITH AN EYE TOWARDS THEIR SELF-INTERESTS. THE BRIEFCASES FULL WITH CURRENCY NOTES FIND THEIR WAYS IN THE JUDGES HOUSE, IN EXCHANGE, MANY RECORDED CRIMINALS, MURDERERS AND FORGERS GO SCOT-FREE. BIMAN BABU, THE CPM LEADER MADE THE COMMENT ABOUT JUDGES. BIMAN BABU DECLARES THAT HE WAS MAKING THOSE COMMENTS CONSCIOUSLY. HE WOULD NOT FLINCH BACK IF HE WERE MADE TO STAND ON THE DOCK FOR THIS."

2. IN CASE THE APPELLANT MADE THE STATEMENT AS QUOTED ABOVE IT WAS DEFINITELY A MATTER THAT COULD NOT BE IGNORED AND DESERVED AN ACTION TO BE TAKEN. THEREFORE, THE AFORESAID PUBLICATION RESULTED IN INITIATION OF SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE APPELLANT AND TWO OTHERS, NAMELY, THE EDITOR AND PUBLISHER OF THE NEWSPAPER. THE CONTEMPT CASE WAS HEARD BY A FULL BENCH OF THREE JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT. BY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, THE APOLOGIES OF THE EDITOR AND PUBLISHER WERE ACCEPTED. THE APPELLANT WAS HELD GUILTY OF CONTEMPT AND A FINE OF RS 1000 WAS IMPOSED ON HIM.

3. THE APPELLANT IN THIS APPEAL HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT. THIS COURT HAS ALSO ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT A NOTICE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PUNISHMENT SHOULD NOT BE ENHANCED IN CASE THE CONVICTION IS UPHELD.

4. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD AND HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES AND MR. ALTAF AHMED, LEARNED ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL WHO WAS REQUESTED TO ASSIST THE COURT AS AMICUS CURIAE. THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE HIGH COURT HAD DISPUTED THE AFORESAID VERSION THAT HAD BEEN PUBLISHED IN BARTAMAN. ACCORDING TO HIM IT WAS AN INCORRECT AND DISTORTED VERSION OF WHAT HE HAD SAID IN THE SEMINAR. THE CORRECT VERSION, ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT, WAS THE ONE THAT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE NEWSPAPER STATESMAN. THE APPELLANT IN THE CONTEMPT CASE HAD TAKEN THE STAND THAT HE HAD NOT SCANDALISED THE JUDICIARY; HE HAD NOT SAID WHAT HAD BEEN IMPUTED TO HIM BY BARTAMAN; IT WAS NOT INCUMBENT UPON HIM TO PROVE WHAT HE HAD SAID AND THAT IT WAS FOR THE COURT TO ELICIT THE TRUTH AS TO WHETHER THE STATEMENTS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE RULE HAD BEEN ISSUED HAD BEEN MADE BY HIM OR NOT. THE APPELLANT FURTHER STATED THAT FOR THE JUDICIARY WHICH PLAYED AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN THE SOCIETY, HE HAD HIGH REGARD AND HE HOLDS THE INSTITUTION OF JUDICIARY IN HIGH ESTEEM.

5. THE HIGH COURT DID NOT ACCEPT THE VERSION OF THE APPELLANT. IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO NOTICE AT THIS STAGE THE APPROACH OF THE HIGH COURT IN DEALING WITH THE STAND OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE VERSION AS PUBLISHED IN BARTAMAN WAS DISTORTED AND INCORRECT. WE, THEREFORE, REPRODUCE HEREUNDER THE RELEVANT PASSAGE FROM THE JUDGMENT UNDER APPEAL:

"WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT 1 THAT THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS WERE LIABLE TO BE DROPPED ON THE BASIS OF HIS MERE ASSERTION THAT HE HAD NOT MADE THE STATEMENTS AS REPORTED IN BARTAMAN. NO DOUBT IT IS FOR THE COURT TO ELICIT THE TRUTH OF HIS ASSERTION BUT THE COURT WILL ARRIVE AT A FINDING ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL BEFORE IT.

IT MAY BE THAT THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT A NEWSPAPER REPORT IS CORRECT BUT IT IS EQUALLY TRUE THAT THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION OF THE FALSITY OF A NEWSPAPER REPORT. THUS A NEWSPAPER REPORT MAY BE RELIED ON FOR THE PURPOSE OF INITIATING PROCEEDINGS IN CONTEMPT BUT NOT FOR PROVING THE CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT.

IN THIS CASE, ON THE ONE HAND, THE NEWSPAPER REPORT