STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus CH. BHAJAN LAL AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 735 · Decided: 18-12-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
CH. BHAJAN LAL AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC. 
DECEMBER 18, 1992 
(S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.] 
B 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: Section 3-Contempt of Court-Suo 
moto notice-Issuance of-Statement of facts appearing in Press report-f'roof 
of-Necessity for. 
The petitioner/applicant, a DIG of Police of the appellant-State, c 
filed a contempt petition before this Court requesting to initiate suo 
moto proceeding for criminal contempt allegedly committed by the 
respondent/contemner, and to issue notice for the .same and punish him 
adequately. He also filed two Interlocutory applications praying for 
awarding adequate punishment to the respondent for committing ag- D 
gravated contempt of the Authority of this Court by seeking to punish 
the petitioner (applicllnt) for assisting the Court through the advocates 
appearing for the State and setting aside the order of suspension of the 
petitioner/applicant and also for faxing an early date of hearing of the 
contempt application and the application for direction filed by the E 
applicant earlier. 
The applicant stated that the respondent in order to create a bias in 
his favour and prejudice that he was innocent of the charge of amassing 
wealth by illegal and corrupt means, had issued public statements so that 
this Court did not take the serious charges of corruption against him F 
seriously, and issued a statement touching upon the proceedings pending 
before this Court, which amounted to gross criminal contempt of the 
Court. 
On behalf of the State, it was contended that the petition was not 
maintainable for the reasons : (1) the petitioner was neither the investigat· G 
ing officer in the case registered against the respondent nor he was a party 
to that criminal proceedings; (2) that the statement attributed to the 
respondent could not be said to have interfered with the proceedings, then 
pending before this Court, since on that day the First Information Report 
had already been quashed by the High Court and there was no stay of the H 
735 
736 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A order. of the High Court passed by this Court; (3) that in any case , there 
was no material on record apart from the newspaper report to show .that 
this statement was made by the respon~ent; (4) that the petitioner was not 
competent to file this contempt petition because be was not a party to the 
proceedings. 
B 
On behalf of the respondent the very maintainability of the petition 
by the applicant was questioned on the ground that the press statement 
without proof of the contents found therein was inadmissible in law. It was 
contended that the statemeni of fact contained in a newspaper report was 
merely here say and, therefore inadmissible in evidence in the absence of 
C proof by evidence aliunde, that there was no proof that the alleged con.: 
temptuous statement was in fact made. by the Chief Minister, as it ap-
peared in the Press note, that it was only for the applicant to satisfy the 
court by adducing acceptable evidence that the statemeut offact contained 
in the report was true and that it called for issued of suo moto notice. 
D 
Dismissing the Contempt Petition and the Interlocutory Applica-
tions, this Coart. 
HELD: 1.1. No evidence has been let in proof of the statement of 
facts contained in the newspaper report. The absence of any denial by the 
E respondent will not absolve the applicant from discharging his obligation 
of proving the statement of facts as appeared in the Press report. There-
fore, in the absence of required legal proof, the Court will not be justified 
in issuing a suo moto notice for contempt of court. [748-B,C] 
1.2. When the alleged statement was made, the entire proceedings 
F 
inclusive of investigation culminating from the registration of the FIR 
against the respondent had been quashed by the High Court and no stay 
has been granted by this Court and the petitioner was not a party to the 
proceedings. [748-D] 
1.3. A perusal of the news item does not spell out any reference to 
G the case of corruption or its proceeding pending before this Court. In the 
alleged contemptuous statement only the view of the reporteris mentioned 
as if the respondent had perhaps been provoked about the proceedings of 
the case before the Supreme Court. In fact, the Civil Appeal itself has been 
disposed of subsequently and one of the Interlocutory applications is filed 
H in the main Civ

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.