Cancellation of conviction and sentene does not mean suspension of sentene.

GULAB C. GUPTA, J.

The petitioner claims to be the General Manager of Dinakaran, a Tamil daily newspaper published from Madras and has preferred this writ petition challenging the validity of the detention of Mr. A. Muthupapdian (petitioner in W.P. 8529/94), News Editor of the said daily by the respondents 1 and 2 on an alleged breach of privilege of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly (hereinafter referred to as the Assembly). It appeals that a portion of the proceedings of the Assembly dt. 8-2-1993 were ordered to be expunged by the first respondent exercising his authority under Rule 281 of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rules framed under Art. 208(1) of the Constitution of India. The daily Dinakaran, however, in its edition dated 9-2-1993 published the entire proceedings including the portion ordered to be expunged by the first respondent. On the aforesaid record two Members of the Assembly raised the question of privilege on 9-2-1993 itself. Thereafter the third respondent issued a letter to the Editor of the said daily on 9-2-1993 requiring him to send his explanation to the aforesaid publication which amounted to breach of privilege, by 20-3-1993. The petitioner Muthupandian however, did not send his explanation within the due date and wanted some further information from the third respondent. The said petitioner's reply was, however, sent to the third respondent on 31-3-1993. The said petitioner also submitted a detailed explanatory letter on 28-4-1993 in which he denied that any breach of privilege had been committed by the newspaper in publishing the expunged portions of the proceedings. Thereafter, it was considered proper to refer the matter to the Privilege. Committee to ascertain whether any case of breach of privilege was made out against the said petitioner and others concerned with the newspaper. The Privilege Committee considered the matter in its sittings on 29-10-1993, 11-4-1994 and 21-4-1994 and submitted its report on 21-4-1994. From the said report it appears that the Privilege Committee found the News Editor of the newspaper guilty of two breaches of privileges and recommended seven day's simple imprisonment to him for each of them. It was also recommended that two sentences should run concurrently. This report of the Privilege Committee was placed before the House on 28-4-1994, which, by a resolution, accepted the same and sentenced the News Editor, A. Muthupandian, to simple imprisonment for seven days for the aforesaid breaches of privilege.

2. Before the petitioner, A. Muthupandian, the News Editor, could be arrested pursuant to the resolution dated 30-4-1994 of the first respondent, he filed a writ petition in this Court on 2-5-1994 under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legal validity of the aforesaid sentence, which is the subject matter of W.P. No. 8529 of 1994. This writ petition was heard by a learned single Judge of this Court on 4-5-1994, who was pleased to order notice of the petition to be sent to the respondents.

3. It also appears that on 2-5-1994, Thiru Kumari Anandan, the Member raising the privilege issue on 9-2-1993 moved the House to revoke the sentence imposed on the petitioner, Muthupandian and instead warn him not to publish such proceedings in future. The proceedings dated 2-5-1994 indicate that the Chief Minister also requested the respondent Speaker to drop the proceedings by showing magnanimity towards the newspaper and its News Editor Muthupandiar. The House, in its magnanimity, passed a resolution revoking its resolution dated 30-4-1994 and the sentence imposed on the petitioner - Muthupandian. This magnanimous gesture of the Assembly should normally have brought the matter to a close.

4. It however appears that the newspapers dated 5-5-1994 carried the news of the Writ Petition No. 8529 of 1994 being admitted and notices issued by this Court and hence the House of the Assembly once again discussed this issue. The first respondent is report