JUDGMENT 1. - These three contempt petitions are against one Om Prakash Bansal, who is Editor, Printer and Publisher of "Prashant Jyoti'', a weekly Hindi Newspaper. 2. Contempt Petition No. 1067/82 is with regard to a news-item, "Yell Judge rishwat-khor hai", published in the issues of the "Prashant-Jyoti" dated 2nd to 8th June, 82. In this news-item, some aspersions were cast on the functioning of the High Court, in the matter of transfers and in dealing with various departmental proceedings against various judicial, officers. The functioning of the Chief Justice was also criticized in the said article. It was further mentioned that corrupt officers were being given promotions, and a further narration was given therein of a previous publication, in which corruption charges were levelled against 32 judges of the subordinate courts. This particular item was against one Radhey Shyam Sharma, who was CJM, Jhalawar. This article scandalised the Chief Justice of the High Court, as if he was granting protection of corrupt judicial officers in the lower heirarchy. 3. The second news-paper was in the newspaper "Prashant - Jyoti", in its publications from 20th to 26th July, 83. The relevant article was published under the caption, "Bagula Ji aub bhakti karengey", the objectionable paras of which, were as under : " cxqyk " th vc HkfDr djsaxsA U;k;ifydk jktLFkku ds iz/kku Jh ds0Mh0 'kekZ }kjk vius lkezkT; esa izFke n`"Vk LohdkjksfjDr Hkz"Vkpkj dh ( \ ) vkSj ?kks"k.kk nksf"k;ksa dks nf.Mr djus dh ( ! The relevant article was published under the caption, "Bagula Ji aub bhakti karengey", the objectionable paras of which, were as under : " cxqyk " th vc HkfDr djsaxsA U;k;ifydk jktLFkku ds iz/kku Jh ds0Mh0 'kekZ }kjk vius lkezkT; esa izFke n`"Vk LohdkjksfjDr Hkz"Vkpkj dh ( \ ) vkSj ?kks"k.kk nksf"k;ksa dks nf.Mr djus dh ( ! ) Hkz"Vkpkj ds izfr iw.kZr;k lefiZr Jh dY;k.knRr 'kekZ tc viuk lkEizT; NksM+dj izns'k ds jkT;iky ds :i esa fuokZlu dky dkV jgs FksA 1981&82 ds yxHkx 7 ekg ds vius dk;Zdky esa dk;Zokgd eq[; U;k;kf/kifr ekuuh; Jh Mh0 ih0 xqIrk us vusd Hkz"V U;kf;d vf/kdkfj;ksa o deZpkfj;ksa ds fo:) tkap vkns'k fn;s FksA phQ tfLVl Jh xqIrk us mu vkns'kksa ls mRiUu NViVkgV ml oDr Li"V gks xbZ tc Jh dY;k.k nRr us iqu% eq[; U;k;kf/kifr dk dk;ZHkkj lEHkkykA " phQ tfLVl dk pkpZ ysrs gh bUgksaus Hkz"Vkpkj ds fo:) iwjs U;kf;d iz'kklu esa tgka dgha Hkh fdlh Hkh Lrj ij tkap dk;Zokgh py jgh Fkh] reke dks vfoyEc jksd nsus ds Vsyh Qksfud vkSj tckuh vkns'kksa ds lkFk lEcfU/kr fjdkMZ fMLiSp jftLVj rd rRdky vius dCts esa ys fy;s FksA 'kk;n blhfy;s fd ftuds fo:) tkap py jgh Fkh bu lc Hkz"Vkpkfj;kas ds lkFk lhts lkgc ds fgr Hkh tqM+s gq, FksA ukS lkS pwgs [kkdj fcYyh pyh gt djus ukS lkS pwgs [kkus okyh fcYyh dh gt ;k=k Hkh egt Hkqykos esa Mkydj LokFkZfl}h djus ek= gksrh gSA U;kf;d iz'kklfud Hkz"Vkpkj esa Hkkd.B Mqcs Jh dY;k.k nRr 'kekZ ds vkt rd ds 'kkludky esa tkfrokn] HkkbZ Hkrhtkokn] xqVckth fod`r :i mHkj dj lkeus vk;k gS muds en~nsutj lsok fuo`fRr ls rhu ekg iwoZ U;k;ikfydk esa Hkz"Vkpkj ds mUewyu gsrq iz'kklfud lfefr ds xBu dh mudh ?kks"k.kk fdu etcwfj;ksa vkSj fufgr mn~ns';ksa dks vius xHkZ esa lesVs gS dgk ugha tk ldrkA " 4. While submitting the petition for taking action against Om Prakash Bansal for contempt, it was mentioned therein that he had scandalised and defamed the judiciary as a whole and had particularly made insinuating comments regarding the then Hon'ble Chief Justice, Shri K. D. Sharma. It was further mentioned therein that the new-items were per se defamatory and intended to lower the dignity and prestige of the High Court and the judiciary as a whole, and so, by publishing and printing those articles. It was further mentioned therein that the new-items were per se defamatory and intended to lower the dignity and prestige of the High Court and the judiciary as a whole, and so, by publishing and printing those articles. O. P. Bansal had scandalised the highest functionary of the judiciary i. e., the Chief Justice, and thus, he was committed criminal contempt of the High Court. 5. In Criminal Contempt Petition 1412, the matter is with regard to the issues of "Prashant-Jyoti" dated 7th to 13th September, 83. In these issues, O. P. Bansal published the article under the caption, `Rajasthan ki Nyaypalika - Antheen bhrashtachar ka samapan ?" " jktLFkku dh U;k;ifydk vUrghu Hkz"Vkpkj dk lekiu\ jktLFkku dh U;kikfydk esa vkxkeh 22 vDVwcj dks eq[; U;k;kf/kifr Jh dY;k.knRr 'kekZ ds vodk'k xzg.k djus ds lkFk gh lhekghu Hkz"Vkpkj ds ,d ;qx dk lekiu gks jgk gSA Jh 'kekZ dh ljijrh esa vkt rd U;k; dh tM+ksa dks O;fHkpkj dh [kkn vkSj Hkz"Vkpkj ds ikuh ls [khaprs vk jgs reke yDdM+cX?kksa ds fy, mudh fjVkjesaV dk fnu&eksgjZje dk fnu gksxkA D;ksafd bl fnu ls Hkz"Vkpkj f'kjkse.kh Jh 'kekZ dk lk;k buds lj ls ges'kk ds fy, mB tk;sxkA " While moving these contempt petitions, it was mentioned that a bare perusal of the articles reveals that they are per se defamatory and intended to lower the dignity and prestige of the Hon'ble Court and the judiciary as a whole, and that they were written in a very contemptuous and derogatory language intending to scandalise and lower the prestige of the highest functionary, i. e., Hon'ble the Chief Justice, and so they amount to criminal contempt of Court. 6. In view of the applications made in the three cases as mentioned above, after registering the cases, and after satisfying that the publications of the aforesaid articles in the newspaper, amounted to criminal contempt of Court, which had scandalised and intended to scandalise and lower the authority of the Court, a notice was given to O. P. Bansal, the Editor, Publisher and Printer of the said newspaper, to show cause as to why he should not be held guilty of criminal contempt. On receiving this notice, O. P. Bansal appeared before this Court and submitted his publish in all these three petitions. 7. Apart from these three contempt petitions, there was one more contempt petition (No. 1414/83). On receiving this notice, O. P. Bansal appeared before this Court and submitted his publish in all these three petitions. 7. Apart from these three contempt petitions, there was one more contempt petition (No. 1414/83). That petition was with regard to one news-item published in the issues of "Prashant-Jyoti" dated 10th to 16th August, 83, and was disposed by the order of this Court dated 21st November, 87, and the contemner O. P. Bansal was found guilty of contempt of Court and was punished with simple imprisonment for 5 months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month. In that petition, O. P. Bansal had submitted his apology, which was not accepted by the Court, and he was published and sentenced as mentioned above. Against that order, O. P. Bansal filed an appeal before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, and Hon'ble the Supreme Court, while accepting the apology tendered by the appellant. O. P. Bansal, ordered that the contempt was purged. 8. After the decision in the appeal against the order of this Court in Contempt Petition No 1414/83, O P. Bansal submitted his replies to the show-cause notices in Contempt Petitions Nos. 1413/83 and 1412/83, and prayed that this Court may be pleased to pass an order not to initiate proceedings against him for contempt of Court. He also quoted therein, the order of Hon'ble the Supreme Court dated 8th May, 85 which was passed in the appeal against the order dated 21st November, 84, passed in Contempt Petition No. 1414/83. 9. Mr. Dhingra, the learned counsel for the contemner did not argue on the merits of the case, but, he tendered apology on behalf of the contemner and prayed that Hon'ble the Supreme Court has accepted the apology tendered by the contemner and accepting his appeal, has set aside the order of this Court, and so, the apology tendered by the contemner in all these three petitions, may also be accepted and proceedings against him, may be dropped. It was also argued by him that after 1983, the petitioner did not publish any article allegedly scandalising and lowering the prestige of the judiciary of the State. 10. We have perused the replies submitted by the contemner O. P. Bansal in these petitions, and also considered the arguments of Mr. It was also argued by him that after 1983, the petitioner did not publish any article allegedly scandalising and lowering the prestige of the judiciary of the State. 10. We have perused the replies submitted by the contemner O. P. Bansal in these petitions, and also considered the arguments of Mr. Dhingra, the learned counsel for the contemner, with regard to accepting the apology tendered by. 11. O.P. Bansal, apart from these four news-items, three being pending in this Court, and one having been decided by this Court on 21st November, 84, published one more in the issue of "Prashant-Jyoti" dated 30th March, 81. In that news-item, 32 judicial officers were labelled as corrupt officers, and as there was such scandalization, the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, the District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur and other Judicial officers made a reference to this Court complaining of publication of the aforesaid news-item. On that reference a DB Cr. Contempt Petition No. 494/81 was initiated. A notice of that contempt petition was given to O.P. Bansal, the Editor, Publisher and Printer, and after hearing him, that contempt petition was decided on 27th May, 81' whereby, O.P. Bansal was convicted, under the Contempt of Courts Act and sentenced to 2 months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. It is not disputed that O.P. Bansal has undergone this punishment. 12. Thereafter, one news-item was published in the issues of "Prashant-Jyoti" dated 10th to 16 August, 83, for which, he was punished vide this Court's order dated 21st November, 84 in Contempt Petition No. 1414/83. Even then, O.P. Bansal was not satisfied and he continued printing and publishing news-items scandalising and defaming the judiciary and also publishing and printing insinuating news intending to lower the dignity and prestige of the Chief Justice of this High Court. In spite of his punishment in the year 1981, O.P. Bansal published 4 news-items scandalising and defaming the judiciary as a whole. In the news-item published in the issues from 20th to 26th July, 83' he made derogatory comments regarding the then Chief Justice of Rajasthan, Hon'ble Shri K.D. Sharma. 13. In spite of his punishment in the year 1981, O.P. Bansal published 4 news-items scandalising and defaming the judiciary as a whole. In the news-item published in the issues from 20th to 26th July, 83' he made derogatory comments regarding the then Chief Justice of Rajasthan, Hon'ble Shri K.D. Sharma. 13. A bare reading of these news-items reflects that they were per se defamatory and intended to lower the dignity and prestige of the High Court and the judiciary as a whole. The articles had a tendency of creating a negative feeling and attract the public at large that there was corruption on the rampart of judiciary and that corrupt officers were being rewarded by the head of the judiciary. Thus he had clearly scandalised the highest functionary of the judiciary, i.e., Hon'ble the Chief Justice. 14. We have also perused the news-item of "Prashant-Jyoti" dated 7th to 13th Sept., 83. The language of this news-item is highly contemptuous and derogatory intending to scandalise and lower the prestige of the then Chief Justice of the High Court as well as the judiciary as a whole. 15. A person who has been punished for his mala fide undesirable conduct, in the year 1981, did not improve himself, but continued to attack the judiciary of the State and also the highest functionary of the judicial system. The repetition of publication of such news-items in the news-paper, ''Prashant-Jyoti" shows that Om Prakash Bansal intentionally printed and published those articles. A person once punished for his contemptuous action, should try to improve himself and he should not indulge himself in printing or publishing of defamatory news, for which, he may further be punished. The news-items in all these three contempt petitions, as mentioned above, are highly contemptuous intending to lower the prestige of the judiciary of the State, and they reflect aspersions against the functioning of the Chief Justice, i.e., the head of the judiciary. O. P. Bansal did not stop from committing such misdeeds, but continued to publish derogatory news-items in his newspaper, on different dates. Therefore, a person who is a habitual and who in spite of his previous conviction, did not stop publishing contemptuous articles against the judiciary of the State, in our considered opinion, does not deserve any leniency, and it is not a fit case where the apology tendered by the contemner is to be accepted. Therefore, a person who is a habitual and who in spite of his previous conviction, did not stop publishing contemptuous articles against the judiciary of the State, in our considered opinion, does not deserve any leniency, and it is not a fit case where the apology tendered by the contemner is to be accepted. Had it been a single instance of publishing such derogatory news-items, the case would have been a different one. While accepting the contempt petition No. 1414/83 this Court did not think it a fit case to accept the apology tendered by the contemner, and he was accordingly punished. In appeal, Hon'ble the Supreme Court accepted that apology and observed in its judgment that that was not a fit case in which, the High Court should have refused the apology. But, now before us, there are three more contempt petitions, in which, the contemner has scandalised and defamed the judiciary as a whole, passing most derogatory and unhappy remarks about the head of the judiciary, i.e., the Chief Justice, what he did not only once, but, repeated thrice. So, keeping the fact in mind that he is in the habit of printing and publishing such derogatory news-items in his newspaper and the fact that he was already convicted and sentenced to imprisonment by this Court in the year 1981 which did not deter him, in our opinion, it is not a fit case where the apology tendered by the contemner, should be accepted. Hence, the prayer of Mr. Dingra, the learned counsel for the contemner, for accepting the apology tendered by the contemner, is rejected. 16. It is also pertinent to mention here that O. P. Bansal the contemner was also given a notice for taking action for committing contempt of this Court in DB Contempt petition No. 540/81, and in that news-item, he had scandalised the late V. P. Tyagi and Shri K. D. Sharma both the Chief Justices of this Court, and had also made some derogatory references to the then Chief Justice, Shri Chand Mal Lodha. In that case, O. P. Bansal was punished and sentenced to 1 month's simple imprisonment. In that case also, the contemner had tendered his apology, but, that was refused. Then, again he started his activities by condemning the conduct of the then Chief Justices the late V. P. Tyagi and Shri K. D. Sharma. In that case, O. P. Bansal was punished and sentenced to 1 month's simple imprisonment. In that case also, the contemner had tendered his apology, but, that was refused. Then, again he started his activities by condemning the conduct of the then Chief Justices the late V. P. Tyagi and Shri K. D. Sharma. For that scandalization proceedings were initiated, and in D.B. Contempt Petition No. 570/81, he was sentenced to 14 days simple imprisonment for committing contempt of this Court. In that case also, he had tendered his apology, but, that was rejected. 17. In one another DB Contempt Petition No. 539/81, contemner O.P. Bansal was sentenced to 1 week's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 1 week's simple imprisonment. It is also relevant to mention here that O. P. Bansal had moved an application requesting this Court that the sentences of imprisonment awarded to him in DB Cr. Contempt Petitions Nos. 494/81, 540/81, 570/81 & 539/81, be ordered to run concurrently; and that application was rejected by this Court, vide its order dated 28th Sept., 81. 18. This all shows that contemner Om Prakash Bansal in spite of his punishment for committing contempt of this Court has continued the same activities of printing and publishing scandalising and defamatory news-items in his newspaper, "Prashant-Jyoti", lowering and damaging the prestige of the judiciary as a whole. Therefore, we do not find any reason for accepting the apology tendered by him; and we are constrained to observe that in spite of his punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act, he did not stop scandalising and lowering the prestige of the head of the judiciary, and in spite of his previous conviction, he did not improve himself, nor has he stopped defaming the judiciary of the State. 19. As a result, we find Om Prakash Bansal, the Editor, Printer and Publisher of Hindi Weekly Newspaper, "Prashant Jyoti", guilty of offence u/s. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, and sentence him in all the three contempt petitions to 2 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. The substantive sentences awarded to the contemner in all the three contempt petitions, shall, however, run concurrently. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. The substantive sentences awarded to the contemner in all the three contempt petitions, shall, however, run concurrently. Consequently, all the three petitions are accepted.All 3 petition accepted. *******