Judges : M.A.ANSARI,M.MADHAVAN NAIR
Kayiath Damodaran - Appellant
Versus
Induchoodan and Others - Respondent
Case No : C. C. C. Appl. No. 15 of 1959
Decided On : 07/29/1960
Advocates Appeared :
K. P. Abraham; For Petitioner V. R. Krishna Iyer; R. Krishnaswamy; For Respondents
Contempt of Court - Defamation - Contempt of High Court - Abuse of Litigant - Misrepresentation of Party to Litigation - [Contempt of Court] - [Defamation] - [Injurious misrepresentations concerning parties to proceedings] - The court discussed the publication of injurious misrepresentations concerning parties to proceedings in relation to those proceedings, which may amount to contempt of Court. The misrepresentation of a party in relation to a pending criminal proceeding was found to be contemptuous and prejudicial to the administration of justice. The court emphasized the responsibility of the press to observe rules of law and not to injure the cause of a party by misrepresentation.
Fact of the Case:
The newspaper 'Desabhimani' published a news item containing insinuations that were calculated to interfere with the course of justice in a pending case and to give a party to the case a bad character. The publication was also alleged to constitute contempt of the High Court and the judges, including the Chief Justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the publication amounted to contempt as it abused a litigant in connection with the pending proceedings and misrepresented a party in relation to the pending criminal proceeding. The court emphasized the responsibility of the press to observe rules of law and not to injure the cause of a party by misrepresentation.
Issues: The issues involved the alleged defamation and contempt of the High Court and the judges, as well as the abuse and misrepresentation of a party to the pending criminal proceeding.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the publication of injurious misrepresentations concerning parties to proceedings in relation to those proceedings may amount to contempt of Court. The misrepresentation of a party in relation to a pending criminal proceeding was found to be contemptuous and prejudicial to the administration of justice.
Final Decision: The court concluded the contempt proceedings with a warning, emphasizing the responsibility of the press to observe rules of law and not to injure the cause of a party by misrepresentation. No sentence was passed, and the parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
1. The application is to punish for contempt the Editor as well as the Printer and Publisher of the newspaper called "Desabhimani", that is published from Kozhikode. The aforesaid newspaper had published on December 1 and 2,1959, what purports to be information from its special correspondent, and its translation in English reads thus:
"It is learnt that Sri Chacko, the District Magistrate of Tellicherry, has been transferred to Kozhikode as the Principal Sub-Judge. It is further learnt that the black hands of certain leaders of the Deliverance movement were behind the transfer. Shri Chacko had issued a warrant to search the house of a prominent Congress leader of Cannanore and it is stated that the said leader had bestowed a blessing on Sri Chacko that he would not be able to issue similar orders any longer. It is this blessing that has come out in the shape of a transfer."
2. The petitioner complains that the publication amounts to contempt of Court, because it defames him in connection with proceedings pending before a Magistrate; and the facts to support the complaint are given in his affidavit, which can be shortly stated. The petitioner is the defendant in Original Suit No. 80/1955, which is pending adjudication before the Subordinate Judge of Tellicherry, and an interlocutory order had in the case been passed for production of the accounts of the partnership, of which the petitioner and the plaintiff in the case were partners. The petitioner claims to have, in compliance, produced account books in his possession of the aforesaid partnership, that had been dissolved in 1953; and further avers that he was, on October 21, 1959, summoned in the case to produce discharged hundies and some other account books relating to a different concern, whereupon he produced some books, and field an affidavit undertaking to make a thorough search of the discarded books in his office and to produce the documents, if discovered, at the next hearing. That was fixed for November 25,1959; and the petitioner swears in the affidavit before us that he directed his employees to make thorough search, to collect discarded books, papers, and to bundle them, with the object of producing them before Court; but the plaintiff of the civil suit filed a complaint before the District Magistrate, Sri V.T. Chacko, complaining of offences under S.406, 204 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code, against the petitioner. The complainant prayed for search of the petitioner's office and premises for the recovery of any books and papers, that may be found there, and this step was taken on November 21,1959; and the District Magistrate thereafter issued a search warrant, which was followed by a search of the petitioner's house on November 21 and 22, 1959. The news concerning the search was published in the Desabhimani on November 26,1959, and the District Magistrate was transferred from Tellicherry as the Principal Sub -Judge, Kozhikode. Thereafter, the news, extracted earlier in the judgment, was published in the newspaper.
3. The complaint is that the news item contains insinuations, which are calculated to interfere with the course of justice in the case, and to give the petitioner, who is a party to the case a bad character. The next complaint is that the news item constitutes contempt of the High Court and the judges, including the Chief Justice. It follows that the petitioner claims the publication to be contempt of a party to a litigation, and to contain disparaging remarks about the judges as well as the Chief Justice of this Court
4. The counter-affidavit pleads that there is no reference to the High Court, nor to the judges of the High Court, nor the publication makes any suggestion affecting the High Court nor against the judges of the High Court. Para.3 of the counter-affidavit says:
"Both the parties to the litigation referred to are Congressmen, although the petitioner has greater control over the Congress machinery than the other, it is learnt. The re
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.