1952 (2) TMI 23 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 2(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act.
2. Merits of the case regarding the appellant's good faith and the nature of the article published.

Detailed Analysis

Jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 2(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act
The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the High Court to take cognizance of the contempt case under Section 2(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act, which states: "No High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code." The appellant argued that the allegations in the article amounted to defamation under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, thereby barring the High Court's jurisdiction.

The judgment clarified that Section 2(3) excludes the High Court's jurisdiction only in cases where the acts alleged to constitute contempt are punishable as contempt under specific provisions of the Indian Penal Code, not where these acts merely amount to other offences. The court emphasized that the language of the sub-section uses the words "where such contempt is an offence" and not "where the act alleged to constitute such contempt is an offence." This distinction implies that the High Court's jurisdiction is not ousted merely because the act is punishable under the Indian Penal Code; it must be punishable as contempt specifically.

The judgment also referenced several decisions from the Calcutta, Patna, Allahabad, and Lahore High Courts supporting this interpretation. The court rejected the appellant's reliance on the Nagpur High Court's decision in Kisan Krishna Ji v. Nagpur Conference of Society of St. Vincent de Paul, noting that the earlier decision of the same court in Subordinate Judge, First Class, Hoshangabad v. Jawaharlal, which took the opposite view, was more consistent with the legislative intent.

Merits of the Case: Good Faith and Nature of the Article
The appellant contended that the article was published in good faith to draw attention to public concerns about the Sub-Magistrate's conduct and to invite an inquiry. However, the court found the article to be a scurrilous attack on the integrity and honesty of the judicial officer, containing specific instances of alleged bribery and harassment without any substantiation.

The appellant admitted that the allegations were based on hearsay and did not make any effort to verify the information before publication. The court held that the appellant did not act with reasonable care and caution, thus failing to prove good faith. Furthermore, the appellant did not express any regret for the publication, either in the High Court or before the Supreme Court, showing no contrition.

The court concluded that the publication was calculated to lower the prestige and dignity of the courts and bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Therefore, the High Court's decision to find the appellant guilty of contempt and sentence him to three months of simple imprisonment was upheld.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's judgment that the publication amounted to contempt of court and the appellant's actions did not demonstrate good faith or reasonable care. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 2(3) of the Contempt of Courts Act was correctly exercised, as the contempt in question was not specifically punishable as such under the Indian Penal Code.