Atma Charan, J.C.
1. Heard the parties,
2. This is an application by one Rattanlal drawing the attention of the Court to the fact that the Printer and Publisher of the 'Azad' Ghisulal Pandiya has committed contempt of the Court and the Courts subordinate to it by Printing and Publishing an article headed 'Self-interested persons unsuccessful in the Court of Session' in his paper, dated 24.11.1951. The article in question reads as below:
A few days ago due to dirty party-formation Seth of Bijainagar filed a case in the Local Court of City Magistrate against ex-Director of Food & Civil Supplies, Shri Shantilalji Gupta. Against it Shri Guptaji filed a revision petition before the District & Sessions Judge, Shri Roy. This petition was accepted on Tuesday by Shri Roy and now the case cannot go on at all. There was a big crowd present in Court to hear result of the petition and on hearing these lines in judgment that the case is quite malicious and fabricated, all unanimously praised Shri Roy's impartiality and capability to do justice.
3. Notice accordingly was issued to the opposite party to show cause as to why he should not be dealt with and punished under the Contempt of Courts Act. He has appeared in Court, and has put in an unqualified apology. It is accordingly to be seen whether the Court has power to punish for contempt of the Courts subordinate to it as well and, if so, whether any contempt of the Courts subordinate to it has been made, or not.
4. It is an admitted case of the parties that a Judicial Commissioner's Court is now a 'High Court' for certain purposes vide the Judicial Commissioner's Courts (Declaration as High Courts) Act and that by virtue of Article 215 of the Constitution of India it is a Court of record, and has the power to punish for contempt of itself as well as for contempt of the Courts subordinate to it. The very same view appears to have been taken in. the ruling as cited in Vindhya Pradesh State v. Baij Nath AIR 1951 Vin Pra 14. The Court accordingly has the power to punish for contempt of the Courts subordinate to it as well.
5. The counsel for the applicant has taken exceptions to three phrases in the article in question and these are (I) 'due to dirty party-formation', (II) 'the case cannot go on at all' & (III) 'all unanimously praised Shri Roy's impartiality and capability to do justice'. So far as phrases (I) & (II) are concerned I find nothing wrong with them so as to constitute any contempt of the Courts subordinate to the Court. These phrases more or less appear to be bases on the recommendations of the Sessions Judge himself to the Court. So far as phrase (III) is concerned I do not hold the opposte party to be altogether blameless in the matter. He has in his zeal tried to unnecessarily praise the order of the Sessions Judge as it fitted in with his own line of thinking. A Court should ordinarily tolerate no criticism or praise of its judgment. In the present case the contempt whatever it be appears to be so trifling that no serious notice thereof need be taken, specially in view of the unqualified apology tendered by the opposite party. It may be mentioned here that this is the first occasion that proceedings for contempt of Court have been initiated here, and should now serve as a warning signal against contemptful conduct in future in the State of Ajmer.
6. The unqualified apology tendered accordingly is accepted in full and the notice is discharged.