Criminal Contempt Petition No.2 of 2009

10th March, 2010

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. R. S. JAISINGHANI,Smt. JACINTA D'SILVA
Respondent Counsel: Mr. VIRAG TULZAPURKAR,Ms. S. SRIKRISHNA,M/s. Kanga & Co.,Mr. BHAVESH PARMAR,Smt. A. S. PAI

Cases Cited:
In re: P.C. Sen, AIR 1970 SC 1821 [Para 15]
Hiralal Lal Dixit Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 743 15 [Para 1]
Gaskell & Chambers Ld, 1936n 2 K.B. 595 [Para 17]
In re. Subrahmanyan, Editor, Tribune, AIR (30) 1943 Lahore 329 [Para 18]
Re. P.C. Sen, AIR 1966 Calcutta 411 [Para 19]
Re : Harijai Singh, AIR 1997 SC 73 [Para 20]

JUDGMENT

P. B. MAJMUDAR, J.:- Whether the publication in the newspaper viz. The Times of India, Mumbai on 6th October, 2008, amounts to contempt of court is the question which is required to be decided in the present contempt petition.

2. An article was published by the aforesaid newspaper on 6th October, 2008 wherein a reporting is made in connection with the Court proceedings pending between the petitioner-Vijay S. Mallya and respondent No.6-Baby K. Shetty in the City Civil Court as well as in the Small Causes Court at Mumbai. The title of the said article published in the said newspaper is "Sr citizen takes on 'bullying' builder Drags Him To Court Over Redevpt Deal". In the body of the Article, a reference is made regarding the litigation pending between the parties. It is reported in the said article that refusing to be coerced into a signing a re-development agreement, a senior citizen from Andheri dragged a 'bullying' developer to Court. The article further says that seventy-year old Baby Shetty has been living as a tenant on the ground floor of Gulam Mohammed building in Andheri (W) since 1960. According to the said Shetty, her troubles began when Gulam Immamuddin, the original land-lord of the building died in 2000. There is a further reference in the said article about alleged purchase of the said property by one Vijay Mallya of Ameya Developers. Dispute arose between the said Baby Shetty and the said Vijay Mallya in connection with the status of said Vijay Mallya as to whether he is a land-lord or not. In the present petition, this Court is not concerned with the merits of the disputes pending between the parties. Rather, we refrain ourselves from going into detail about the said aspect as the proceedings are pending before the concerned Courts. The said Article is annexed at Annexure-A to the contempt petition at page 20. As pointed out earlier, the article contains the allegation of Baby Shetty that she was being harassed by the builder and one day somebody removed the roof over the first floor of the premises. By then, the remaining three tenants had been forced to leave and she had to suffer alone. It is stated that the ceiling of her ground floor apartment was damaged because of the leakage and it was a living hell. The said news item in the last paragraph it is stated that "the City Civil Court last week accepted that Mallya was not the land-lord".

3. The petitioner, Vijay Mallya, approached this Court under its contempt jurisdiction on the ground that the publication of the said article may amount to contempt of Court as it may prejudice the concerned Court in the pending court proceedings. The consent of the Advocate General of Maharashtra is also obtained to prosecute the present contempt proceedings on 25th November, 2008.

4. Mr. Jaisinghani, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, vehemently submitted that to describe somebody as 'bullying builder' is contemptuous as the said fact cannot be borne out from court proceedings. Mr. Jaisinghani further submits that it cannot be said that the said reporting is an honest and bona fide reporting of court proceedings as the said report contains only one side version of respondent No.6. He further submits that the aforesaid report in the newspaper is likely to prejudice the concerned Court before whom the court proceedings are pending as the court may form an impression that the petitioner-builder is a high-handed builder and he has resorted to illegal act and has tried to harass respondent No.6. Mr. Jaisinghani further submits that the newspaper should have verified the factual aspect before publishing the news as, according to him, even the people at large may gather an impression that the petitioner is a bad person in the society and it may also affect his business activities. It is also submitted by Mr. Jaisinghani that as per the said news item, the re-development agreement is challenged and the Court stayed the same. In view of such publication, no bona fide person would try to enter into business dealings with the petitioner as one may form an impression that what is stated in the said report is correct one which, according to him, is not correct. Mr. Jaisinghani further submits that it is not correctly reported in the said newspaper that the City Civil Court accepted that Mallya was not the land-lord as, according to him, this aspect is actually not correct. It is submitted by Mr. Jaisinghani that considering the aforesaid aspect this Court may pass appropriate order punishing the concerned respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as "the Act".

5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that respondent No.2, Managing Director, has nothing to do with the present proceedings and that his name may be deleted from the array of parties. Mr. Jaisinghani, in order to substantiate his say, submits that publication of an article in a given case may amount to contempt of Court and has relied upon judgments to which reference will be made later on. It is also submitted by Mr. Jaisinghani that the concerned respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 are not entitled to benefit under Section 4 of the Act as, according to him, it is not an accurate and bona fide reporting of the Court proceedings.

6. Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5, on the other hand, submitted that filing of this contempt petition is nothing but a pressurising tactics adopted by the petitioner as, according to him, the newspaper publication was based on the material produced in the court proceedings between the parties. Mr. Tulzapurkar further submitted that a newspaper is entitled to publish court proceedings in an appropriate manner and as per the available record of the case, if the same is published in the newspaper, it cannot be said that the newspaper is guilty of contempt in any manner. Mr. Tulzapurkar further submits that the press is entitled to ventilate the grievance of a citizen in connection with the court proceedings and in the instant case after verifying the court records the news item has been published and the concerned newspaper has nothing to do with the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.6 in any manner but the news item was published with a view to see that the readers of the newspaper may come to know the nature of proceedings in a given case between a builder and an occupant of the premises. Mr. Tulzapurkar further submits that even the say of the advocate of the petitioner has also been incorporated in the newspaper, though on this point the learned advocate for the petitioner states that the concerned Advocate had never given such statement to the press. Mr. Tulzapurkar further submits that this being a criminal contempt, unless it is shown that the proceedings are covered under Section 2(c)(ii) and (iii) of the Act, the present petition is not maintainable. Mr. Tulzapurkar further submits that by no stretch of imagination it can ever be said that the publication of the said article would, in any way, amount to prejudice or interference or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any manner. Mr. Tulzapurkar submits that the rights of the parties in the present dispute which is a civil dispute between the parties is not to be decided on the basis of the article in the newspaper as the parties are required to lead evidence and prove their respective claims before the concerned Court i.e. City Civil Court or the Small Causes Court at Mumbai, as the case may be. It is also submitted by Mr. Tulzapurkar that in any case the reporting is based on accurate report of the Court proceedings and, therefore, it cannot be said that incorrect and in accurate reporting is given by the newspaper as the said reporting is based on the material available before the concerned Court. Mr. Tulzapurkar further submits that this being a criminal contempt, unless it is proved beyond doubt that the concerned respondents have committed such contempt, the Court cannot record any finding of guilt against the alleged contemnor. Mr. Tulzapurkar has also taken us through the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5. The learned counsel has also relied upon various judgments to substantiate his say that the concerned respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have not committed any contempt in any manner and notice against them is required to be discharged.

7. Mr. Parmar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 as well as party-in-person i.e. Respondent No.7 has supported the arguments of Mr. Tulzapurkar. It is argued by Mr. Parmar that the feedback information was given to the press on the basis of the material on record in various Court proceedings. He stated that he has given the feedback on the basis of some information which he has received from respondent No.6 and some information which he has given is based on the pleadings and documents on record. Mr. Parmar further submits that these contempt proceedings have been initiated by the petitioner with a view to see that respondent No.6 may not take out further legal proceedings. The learned counsel submitted that the roof on the first floor premises of respondent No.6 was removed which resulted into accumulation of water during rainy season. In view of the fear created by the petitioner because of these contempt proceedings, respondent No.6 is unable to take out any judicial proceedings. Mr. Parmar submitted that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that respondent Nos.6 and 7 have committed any contempt, then he is offering unconditional apology and such apology has been tendered by him as well as by respondent No.6. On behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5 also in alternate apology has been expressed.

8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing in the matter at great length and have gone through the voluminous papers running into thousand pages forming part of these criminal contempt proceedings. We have minutely gone through the newspaper report.

9. The principal question which is required to be considered is as to whether the publication of the aforesaid newspaper report may amount to contempt of Court. In order to appreciate the aforesaid point, reference to Section 2(c)(ii) and (iii) is required to be made. The same reads as under :

"2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

..... ..... .....

(c) 'criminal contempt' means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which -

(i) .... ..... ....

(ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceedings; or

(iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner."

Section 4 of the Act reads thus :

"4. Fair and accurate report of judicial proceeding not contempt.- Subject to the provisions contained in section 7, a person shall not be guilty of contempt of court for publishing a fair and accurate report of a judicial proceeding or any stage thereof."

10. It is no doubt true that the heading of the said report in the newspaper carrying the line reads "Sr citizen takes on 'bullying' builder Drags Him To Court Over Redevpt Deal". Mr. Jaisinghani took a strong exception to the aforesaid wording and stated that it may lower down the image of the petitioner in the society which may include his relatives. It is required to be noted that the proceedings under the Contempt of Court are not to be mixed up with a defamation proceeding. Whether the reputation of a person is lowered by publication of any such article is an altogether different question and different aspect to which this Court is not required to deal with in these contempt proceedings. In a given case, even if a particular article may be a defamatory one, yet it may not be an article which may attract the provisions of the Act. Of course, we may clarify that in these proceedings we are not required to adjudicate anything whether the said headline is a defamatory one or not. The question whether the contents of the article is borne out from the record and proceedings or not is required to be decided in this petition.

11. In paragraph 6 of the plaint filed by respondent No.6 before the City Civil Court at Dindoshi in Suit No.474 of 2006, it is averred that the plaintiff came to be regularly threatened by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 that the plaintiff along with her family members would be evicted from the premises by defendant Nos.1 and 2 therein, since they had already procured various sanctions and permission from the statutory and semi-statutory authorities after the execution of the development agreement dated 5th October, 2006. In para 10 of the plaint it is averred as under :

"The plaintiff states that sometime in or about 20-11-2007 till 5-12-2007 the plaintiff had to go to attend the marriage ceremony in her native place at Mangalore and during this period when the plaintiff's son-in-law Mr. Balkrishna M. Shetty was residing in the suit premises, he was coerced and threatened by defendant Nos.1 and 2 to convince the plaintiff into agreeing for development of the plaintiffs suit premises in accordance with development agreement dated 5th October, 2006."

In paragraph 13 of the plaint, an averment is made about plaintiff being coerced and intimidated into forcible eviction and dispossession of the suit premises. Averment regarding coercion is also made in the notice given by Advocate on behalf of respondent No.6. In paragraph 4 of the said notice it is stated that the builder and his agents are harassing and tried to intimidate the plaintiff and her family members. Mr. Tulzapurkar submitted that the said averments in the plaint and notice which form part and parcel of court proceedings can be said to be an act of bullying and, therefore, the said title has been given on the basis of the aforesaid averments in various documentary evidence produced before the Court. In this connection, reference is required to be made to the dictionary meaning of the word "bully" in Oxford Dictionary which reads as under :

"bully - person who uses strength or power to coerce others by fear."

The definition of the word 'bully' is wide enough to cover the alleged deeds on the part of the petitioner. When the concerned newspaper has published the said report on the basis of the court proceedings, it cannot be said that it is contemptuous. As stated earlier, in the present case we are required to consider as to whether the publication amounts to criminal contempt.

12. As regards publication of certain other factual aspect in the said newspaper is concerned, Mr. Tulzapurkar has taken us through each and every paragraph of the said article. The respondent No.5 was the reporter of the said article at the relevant time. Particulars have been given as to how a reporting is made on the basis of the Court proceedings record. The details have been given in paragraph 19 of the reply. Details have also been given in connection with the court proceedings on the basis of which report was made in the newspaper. On going through the said paragraph 19, it is crystal clear that the newspaper reporting is based on the basis of the documentary as well as pleadings which form part of the court proceedings. In our view, therefore, it cannot be said that the said reporting was not accurate and bona fide as the reporting is made on the basis of the record placed before the Court in the pending proceedings between the petitioner and respondent No.6. In the last part of the paragraph it says that the "City Civil Court last week accepted that Mallya was not the land-lord" may not be said to be a correct aspect. However, in this context, Mr. Tulzapurkar submitted that respondent No.6 instituted the proceedings before the City Civil Court wherein her case is that the present petitioner is not the land-lord. In the said proceedings, reply was filed by the present petitioner and subsequently in the reply he took the stand that since respondent No.6 is the tenant of the premises, the City Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the dispute as the only competent forum in such case is the Small Causes Court. The petitioner thereafter requested the Court to decide the point about the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court and by an interim order the Court came to the conclusion that it has jurisdiction to decide the dispute. Mr. Tulzapurkar submitted that in view of this, the press reporter formed an opinion that since the City Civil Court has decided that it has jurisdiction which means that the say of the Petitioner that he is the land-lord of the premises is not accepted. So far as this aspect is concerned, the press instead of drawing an inference from the court proceedings, in our view, should not have drawn any inference in this behalf from the orders of the Court. However, we accept the submission of Mr. Tulzapurkar that the said aspect is published with a bona fide impression that the valid inference which can be drawn is that the petitioner is not the land-lord of the premises. In view of this, it cannot be said that the last part of the publication of the article in any way can be said to be contemptuous. Even otherwise, the Court while deciding the question about the title as to whether the petitioner is a land-lord or not is required to be examined on the basis of the evidence on record. It, therefore, cannot be said that by mentioning the status about the parties in the last part of the report in any way attracts the provisions of Section 2(c)(ii) and (iii) of the Act.

13. In this connection, it is also required to be noted that in a criminal contempt the Court is required to see as to whether a contemnor has committed an act with a view to prejudice or tends to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or obstructs the administration of justice in any other manner. In our view, reporting the court proceedings which we have referred to above ipso facto cannot be said to be an act on the part of the reporter which may amount to prejudice or interfere with or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings. Though in a given case if a reckless and inaccurate reporting is made, there is likelihood that the people at large may gather an impression that the particular person is of a particular type. It is also required to be noted that the Judges are also human being and in a given case if the newspaper report is not correct it may result into some prejudice against such person. The media report may in a given case adversely affect the conduct of fair and proper trial more so in a criminal matter where right of liberty of accused is involved. The media has all the right to give correct and proper reporting so that the readers may be posted with true and correct facts of the court proceedings. In our view, therefore, media is also required to show some restraint and caution while reporting court proceedings. Each and every case depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. So far as factual aspect of the present case is concerned, since the reporting is based on the basis of the material placed before the Court, it cannot be said that such reporting was incorrect reporting or that it cannot be said that it was a fair and accurate report of judicial proceedings. The court proceedings are even otherwise open to all unless any contrary direction is given by the Court in this behalf. The press is entitled to report court proceedings fairly and adequately. However, what is important is that appropriate care is required to be taken while reporting the court proceedings.

14. Considering the factual aspect of the case is concerned, in our view, it cannot be said that the publication in the present case may attract the provisions of Section 2(c)(ii) and (iii) of the Act. During the course of hearing, Mr. Parmar, counsel appearing for respondent No.6 as well as party-in-person, respondent no.7, pointed out that interestingly the petitioner himself placed before the trial court the aforesaid article published by the newspaper only with a view to prejudice the case of the present respondent No.6. This aspect is not in dispute. We have no doubt in our mind that the concerned Court before whom the proceedings are pending will ignore this aspect of the matter as the Judges do not decide the case on the basis of the newspaper report produced before it and the matter is required to be decided as per the evidence available on record. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to direct that the concerned Court will decide the matter without considering the aforesaid newspaper article, if it is produced before it by any party to the proceedings.

15. Mr. Jaisinghani, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of In re: P.C. Sen [AIR 1970 SC 1821]. In the aforesaid case, the Court was concerned with broadcasting of speech on the All India Radio by the then Chief Minister of West Bengal and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, Supreme Court observed as under :

"15. In The William Thomas Shipping Co. in Re. H.W. Dillon & Sons Ltd. Vs. The Company, In Re. Sir Roben Thomas, 1930-2 Ch 368 it was observed that the publication of injurious mis-representation in relation to those proceedings may amount to contempt of Court, because it may cause those parties to discontinue or to compromise and because it may deter persons with good causes of action from coming to the Court,and was thus likely to affect the course of justice. But Maugham, J. observed :

"There is an atmosphere in which a common law Judge approaches the question of contempt somewhat different from that in which a Judge who sits in this (Chancery) Division has to approach it. The common law Judge mainly thinking of the effect of the alleged contempt on the mind of the jury and also, I think, he has to consider the effect or the possible effect of the alleged contempt in preventing witness from coming forward to give evidence. In these days, at any rate, a Judge who sits in this Division is not in the least likely to be prejudiced by statements published in the press as to the result of cases which are coming before him. He has to determine the case on the evidence, of course, and with regard to the principles of law as he understands them, and the view of a newspaper, however, intelligible (intelligently Ed) conducted it may be, cannot possibly affect his mind. Accordingly, a Judge in the Chancery Division starts on the footing that only in the rarest possible case is it likely that the publication by a newspaper of such a statement as I have here to consider will affect the course of justice in the sense of influencing, altering or modifying the judgment or judgments which the Court will ultimately have to deliver."

But our Courts, are Courts, which administer both law and equity. Assuming that a Judge holding a trial is not likely to be influenced by comment in newspaper or by other media of mass communication may be ruled out - though it would be difficult to be dogmatic on that matter also - the Court is entitled and is indeed bound to consider, especially in our country where personal conduct is largely influenced by opinion of the members of the caste, community, occupation or profession to which he belongs, whether comments holding up a party to public ridicule, or which prejudices society against him away not dissuade him from prosecuting his proceeding or compel him to compromise it on terms unfavourable to himself. That is a real danger which must be guarded against; the Court is not in initiating proceedings for contempt for abusing a party to a litigation, merely concerned with the impression on the Judge's mind or even on the minds of witness for a litigant, it is also concerned with the probable effect on the conduct of the litigant and persons having similar claims."

15.1. Mr. Jaisinghani also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hiralal Lal Dixit Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1954 SC 743] and submitted that in order to constitute contempt it is not necessary there should in fact be an actual interference with the course of administration of justice but it is enough if the offending publication is likely or if it tends in any way to interfere with the proper administration of law.

16. However, it is required to be noted that whether a particular publication is such which may amount to obstruct the administration of smooth justice is to be decided by considering the facts of each case. In the instant case, as we have pointed out earlier, in paragraph 19, respondent No.5 has already pointed by replying each and every points regarding the article published in the newspaper and it cannot be said that the said publication, therefore, is contrary to the record of Court proceedings.

17. Mr. Tulzapurkar has relied upon the decision of the King's Bench Division in the case of Gaskell & Chambers Ld. [1936n 2 K.B. 595] and submitted that every libel on a person about to be tried is not necessarily a contempt of court but the applicant must show that something has been published which either is clearly intended or at least his calculated to prejudice a trial which is pending. He submitted that in order to justify an application to the Court the publication complained of must be calculated really to interfere with a fair trial and if this is not the case, the question does not arise whether the publication is so objectionable in its terms as to call for the interference of the Court.

18. Mr. Tulzapurkar further submitted that mere publication of a document or pleading of a party does not amount to contempt. Each case has to be examined on its own facts and it is for the Court to decide in such case as to whether such publication amounts to contempt. Dealing with the point whether the publication of the article tended to interfere with the due administration of justice, Mr. Tulzapurkar has placed on the decision of the Full Bench in the case of In re. Subrahmanyan, Editor, Tribune and others [AIR (30) 1943 Lahore 329] wherein it is held as under :

"Before dealing with the three publications which are said to amount to contempt of Court, it is desirable that the law relating to contempt should be examined and stated. In the year 1742, Lord Hardwicke in (1742)26 E.R. 688 defined contempt of court in these words :

"There are three different sorts of contempt. One kind of contempt is scandalising the Court itself. There may be likewise a contempt of this Court in abusing parties which are concerned in causes here. There may be also a contempt of this Court in prejudicing mankind against persons before the cause is heard."

"Any act done or writing published calculated to bring a Court or a Judge of the Court into contempt or to lower his authority is a contempt of Court. That is one class of contempt. Further, any act done or writing published calculated to obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice or the lawful process of the courts, is a contempt of Court"."

19. Mr. Tulzapurkar placing reliance on the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Re. P.C. Sen [AIR 1966 Calcutta 411] submitted that the trained mind of the Judge is likely to ignore extraneous matters and may not be embarrassed or influenced by each and every prejudicial publication, particularly if he be an appellate Judge concerned entirely with the legal and not the factual aspect of the matter before him.

20. Mr. Tulzapurkar submitted that without the freedom of press truth cannot be attained. On this aspect, he has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Re : Harijai Singh and another [AIR 1997 SC 73] wherein the Supreme Court has held as under :

"8. It may be relevant hereto to recall that the freedom of press has always been regarded as an essential pre-requisite of a Democratic form of Government. It has been regarded as a necessity for the mental health and the well being of the society. It is also considered necessary for the full development of the personality of the individual. It is said that without the freedom of press truth cannot be attained. The freedom of press is a part of the freedom of the speech and expression as envisaged in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Thus, the freedom of the press is included in the fundamental right of freedom of expression. The freedom of press is regarded as "the mother of all other liberties" in a democratic society. Further, the importance and the necessity of having a free press in a democratic Constitution like ours was immensely stressed in several landmark judgments of this Court. The case of Indian Express Newspaper Vs. Union of India [(1985)1 SCC 641 : AIR 1986 SC 515] is one of such judgments rendered by Venkataramiah, J. (as he then was). Again in another case of Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India [AIR 1986 SC 872], A.P. Sen, J. (as he then was) described the right to freedom of the press as a pillar of individual liberty which has been unfailingly guarded by the Courts."

21. It is required to be noted that while deciding the criminal contempt proceedings, the Court is required to see as to whether the alleged act of a contemnor is such that it amounts to contempt of Court or it may amount to an act of prejudice or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceedings or as to whether it amounts to obstruct or tends to obstruct the administration of justice. In the present case, apart from the fact that respondent Nos.1 to 5 are entitled to get the benefit of defence under Section 4 of the Act as the publication cannot be said to be in any way incorrect or unfair publication, in our view, such publication may not fall within the purview of Section 2(c)(ii) and (iii) of the Act as the article is based on the record of the court proceeding itself and the same is required to be considered by the Court while deciding the matter.

22. Considering the said aspect, in our view, this is not a case in which any strict action is required to be taken against the concerned respondents. It is unfortunate that even though it is a criminal contempt, the petitioner, without any basis, unnecessarily dragged respondent No.2 to the court proceedings though ultimately Mr. Jaisinghani has submitted that respondent No.2 may be allowed to be deleted from the present proceedings. Criminal contempt is a serious matter wherein strict proof is also required and a person cannot be joineds as a respondent in a casual manner.

23. Be that as it may, considering the material on record, we are of the opinion that it cannot be said that the concerned Respondent gave false reporting of the court proceedings either in an unfair or inaccurate manner. Similarly, the article is based on the basis of the pending court proceedings. It may be true that the last part of the article to the effect that the City Civil Court last week accepted that Mallya was not the land-lord may not be an absolute accurate reporting. However, we may put the said respondent to caution that in future proper care should be taken and it is not for the press to draw an inference or form an opinion as this aspect is only left to the concerned court before whom the proceedings are pending. We accordingly put a word of caution in this behalf and the concerned press reporter and the press may be more careful that the reporting has to be done cautiously. With this word of caution, we terminate the present proceedings. Contempt Petition is disposed of. Notice discharged.

24. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 have also tendered a conditional apology to state that in case the Court comes to the conclusion that the article in question is contemptuous, then they tender an unconditional apology. In view of what is stated above, we are of the opinion that it cannot be said that the respondents have committed any criminal contempt.

25. Before parting with this order, we may make it clear that the observations made by us in the present order or even the article published in the newspaper should not be taken into account in any manner while deciding the rights of the parties in the pending proceedings and those proceedings to be decided in accordance with law and on its own merit and evidence available on record.

Ordered accordingly.