Honble R.S. VERMA, J.—Teesara Prahar is a daily news paper published simultaneously from Jaisalmer, Jodhpur and Pali. On the front page of the issue of 9.06.1992, the paper carried a news item with the caption ¼vnkyr esa Hkh igaqpk iSls dk tksj½ The news item purported to be given by one Badri Bhatia, who is a respondent before us. The offending portions of the said news item are: ¼1½ ^^tSlyesj] 8 twu& ykbe LVksu us U;k;ky; dks Hkh viuh pisV esa ys fy;k gSA ppkZ gS fd bl dk;Z esa jr tSu dSfjax dkWjiksjsku us gkbZdksVZ ds U;k;k/khk vkksd ekFkqj ls vksojyksM :dokus ds fy, nk;j dh xbZ ;kfpdk dks /ku ds cy ij [kkfjt djok fn;kA** ¼2½ ^^ykbe LVksu Vªd vkWijsVlZ ;wfu;u us Mcy cSap esa nqckjk ;kfpdk nkf[ky dh ftls tljk pkSiM+k o ;knjke ehuk dks /ku dh rkdr ls flQZ uksfVl tkjh djok;s o LVs ugha fn;kA** ¼3½ ^^blh rjg Hkheflga HkkVh tks fd futh {ks= esa ,d ek= O;kikjh gS tSlyesj ds eqaflQ eftLVªsV dks viuh fxjr esa ysdj viuh yht dSafly gksus ls cpkus esa dke;kc gqvkA 2. Respondent Manish Vyas is the proprietor, Chief Editor, publisher and Printer of the said news paper. 3. The Registrar of this Court brought this news item to the notice of Honble the Chief Justice by submitting a written report dated 16.6 1992, wherein the Registrar pointed out that "In the said news item vild (sic) allegations have been made against Honble Judges of this Court, viz. Honble Mr. Justice A.K. Mathur, Honble Mr. Justice J.R. Chopra and Honble Mr. Justice Y.R. Meena with a view to lower down the prestige of the judiciary of this State and which also amounts to unnecessary and illegal interference by a litigant in the administration of Justice." It appears that the third portion of the news item, which pertained to the Court of Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Jaisalmer, escaped the attention of the Registrar. 4. Honble the Chief Justice on reading the news item and report of the Registrar, was satisfied that the news paper carried scandalous remarks with a view to lower the prestige of the Court and judiciary, hence he directed the matter to be listed before the appropriate bench. 5. 4. Honble the Chief Justice on reading the news item and report of the Registrar, was satisfied that the news paper carried scandalous remarks with a view to lower the prestige of the Court and judiciary, hence he directed the matter to be listed before the appropriate bench. 5. By an order dated 8.7.1992, a division bench of this Court took cognizance against Shri Badri Bhatia and Shri Manish Vyas for Contempt of the Court and directed issue of notices to the two respondents. 6. Notices were duly served on the two respondents. Both of them have filed separate written replies to the notices issued to then. Both of them have admitted categorically that the news-item in question was published in the issue of 9th June 1992 of Teesara Prahar. It was also admitted that the news-item emanated from respondent Badri Bhatia. Both of them have seemingly unconditionally apologised for the Contempt committed by them. The gist of the reply of Shri Badri Bhatia is that he issued the press note in question out of frustration and in a mood of depression, after having lost mental equilibrium, details whereof have been given in the reply. The case set up by Shri Manish Vyas is that the news item was published without his knowledge and at his back. By an additional affidavit filed on 10.8.1993, he has taken a plea that on 9.6.1993, he was at Delhi in Hotel King Palace. 7. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General who has assisted the Court. He submits that this is a case where grossest contempt has been committed by the two contemners who though have come out with apologies but the apologies are not sincere. Both the respondents have tried to come out with pleas in extenuation which are not substantiated and do not deserve to be accepted. The contemners should be awarded severe punishment so that it serves as an example to others. We have heard Shri K.S. Rathore for Contemner Badri Bhatia and Shri R.R. Vyas for Contemner Manish Vyas. Both of them candidly conceded that by publishing the offending news-item and in particular the portions thereof reproduced above, the contemners did commit grossest Contempt of this Court as also that of a subordinate court. We have heard Shri K.S. Rathore for Contemner Badri Bhatia and Shri R.R. Vyas for Contemner Manish Vyas. Both of them candidly conceded that by publishing the offending news-item and in particular the portions thereof reproduced above, the contemners did commit grossest Contempt of this Court as also that of a subordinate court. But, both of them urge that the unconditional apology tendered by the two respondents should be accepted by the Court and the Contempt should be taken to have been purged. In the alternative, it has been submitted that in view of the sincere contrition expressed by the respondents, lenient view may be taken in the matter of punishment. 8. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. It appears that Jain Carrying Corporation Jaisalmer is engaged in transport business. Truck Operators Union, Jaisalmer had some grievances against it and the Truck Operators Union filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 873 of 1992 before this Court. Honble Justice A.K.. Mathur dismissed this writ petition in limine. The Truck Operators Union filed an appeal, being D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 110 of 1992. This appeal was heard for admission by a Division Bench consisting of Honble Mr. J.R. Chopra and Honble Mr. Y.R. Meena, JJ and the bench issued show cause notices to the respondent but did not grant any stay in the matter. It was in this back ground that Shri Badri Bhatia gave the offending news item consisting of two portions (i) and (ii) reproduced above. The insinuation contained in the caption of the news items is that money power has reached the Courts also. Portion reproduced as item (i) alleges that the writ petition was got dismissed due to money power. Portion (ii) reproduced already alleges that only notices were issued in appeal and stay was not granted because of force of money. The two offending portions allege in categorical terms that, it was due to money power that such orders were passed. 9. Criminal Contempt has been defined in Sec. 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act No. 70 of 1971). This definition reads as follows:— "Definitions—In this Act unless context otherwise requires, (a) ............ (b) ............ The two offending portions allege in categorical terms that, it was due to money power that such orders were passed. 9. Criminal Contempt has been defined in Sec. 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Act No. 70 of 1971). This definition reads as follows:— "Definitions—In this Act unless context otherwise requires, (a) ............ (b) ............ (c) "Criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which— (i) Scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court, or (ii) Prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding, or (iii) Interferes, or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner; (d) ............" New, a bare reading of two portions (i) and (ii) reproduced above go to show that the two portions are highly scandalous and impute most improper motives to Honble Judges of this Court and cast aspersions on their integrity and constitute grossest Contempt of Court: they have the clear cut effect of lowering the authority and prestige of the Court and suggest that justice could be easily purchased by money in this Court. Since the D.B. Special Appeal was pending when the publication was made, the publication tends to obstruct and interfere with the administration of Justice by suggesting that Honble Judges hearing the appeal were not acting fairly and could not be expected to deliver even handed justice, Learned counsel for the contemners have very fairly and frankly conceded that the two portions (i) and (ii) reproduced above constitute grossest Contempt of the Court. 10. Now, we may first take up the case of Shri Manish Vyas. By taking the plea that on 9.6.92, he was not in Jodhpur, he has tried to suggest that the offending portions were published without his knowledge and authority. Actually, he has said so specifically by submitting that the news was got published without his knowledge and behind his back and as soon as he came to know of this act he immediately removed respondent no. 1 from office of correspondent. 11. Actually, he has said so specifically by submitting that the news was got published without his knowledge and behind his back and as soon as he came to know of this act he immediately removed respondent no. 1 from office of correspondent. 11. It may be stated that Shri Manish Vyas did not have the courage to say where he had been away and in what connection, on the day the offending news-item was published. He does not say as to who was managing the publication on the fateful day. He wants us to place implicit reliance on a statement which is his ipse dixit. For the first time on 10.8.93, he comes out with the plea that he had been away to Delhi and was in Hotel Kings Palace. He has not c\ red to produce any bills or vouchers issued by the Hotel. He has not filed any affidavit of any employee of the hotel that he actually stayed in Hotel Kings Palace on 9.6.92. Rather he speaks of staying in this hotel on 9.6.1993 i.e. a year after the news-item had been published. 12. The news paper carries the following inscription in respect of ownership etc. of the paper: ^^LoRokf/kdkjh iz/kku laiknd] izdkkd ,oa eqnzd euhk O;kl HkkfV;k ekdsZV tSlyesj ls izdkfkr ,oa Mk;usfed vkQlsV fizaVlZA izca/k laiknd lquhy O;klA Respondent Manish Vyas has not cared to file the affidavit of the managing editor Shri Sunil Vyas in support of the plea that the contemner was out of station and the offending portions were published without his knowledge and at his back. The plea that contemnor had been away to Delhi is an after thought and has not been established. Even the plea that the news item was published at his back and without his knowledge cannot be accepted at its face value and deserves to be discarded for want of any corroborative material. 13. To demonstrate his alleged repentance over the entire episode Shri Manish Vyas has alleged in his reply that "as soon as he came to know of this act he immediately removed respondent no. 1 from the office of the correspondent." This is also an ipse dixit of Shri Manish Vyas and is not supported even by Shri Badri Bhatia. It is not even stated if this alleged removal of Shri Badri Bhatia was done orally or in writing. 1 from the office of the correspondent." This is also an ipse dixit of Shri Manish Vyas and is not supported even by Shri Badri Bhatia. It is not even stated if this alleged removal of Shri Badri Bhatia was done orally or in writing. No date is given of this alleged removal. No contemporaneous letter or other documentary evidence has been produced to substantiate this plea. Hence, we cannot accept this sele serving statement of Shri Manish Vyas that he promptly removed Shri Badri Bhatia from the office of correspondence. Moreover, a plea of alibi is always a very weak plea and to be accepted, must be established in a satisfactory manner. In the present case, this plea has not been satisfactory established. 14. We may point out that the News Paper claims that it is being published from three places viz. Jaisalmer, Jodhpur and Pali. Such an establishment must be maintaining record in respect of appointments and removal of its correspondents but no such record is forthcoming. Hence, this show or demonstration of alleged contrition has not been established and the plea does not appear to have been taken bonafide. 15. Now, we may consider the plea of Badri Bhatia that whatever he did was due to frustration and because of depressed state of mind. We can do no better than quote his words which contain this plea. In his reply, he states : "He is the Secretary of the Jaisalmer District Steel Grade Lime Stone Transporters Union and himself owns two trucks. He has personal and collective grievances against the Jain carrying Corporation, Jaisalmer which compels the truck owners of Jaisalmer to carry half a time more load than the prescribed while paying only for the prescribed limit of load. The Truck Operators Union approached the concerned authorities with complaints in writing and also led allegations but the grievances are not redressed. Ultimately, the Truck Operators Union filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 873/92 before this Honble Court praying for issuing directions to the authorities concerned for stopping exploitation of the transporters at the hands of Jain Carrying Corporation. However, this Honble Court finding it a contractual matter dismissed the writ petition in limine on 13.2.1993. Against the order of dismissal, the Transport Association went in Special Appeal wherein show cause notices are ordered to be issued to the respondents. However, this Honble Court finding it a contractual matter dismissed the writ petition in limine on 13.2.1993. Against the order of dismissal, the Transport Association went in Special Appeal wherein show cause notices are ordered to be issued to the respondents. Failing in all efforts, when the non-petitioner was returning home in a depressed mood and by chance met Shri Rajendra Kumar, one of the partners of the Jain Carrying Corporation who resides in Gandhi Colony, Jaisalmer on 7.03.1992, he declared that by the strength of wealth he had won the favour of all the State authorities and also secured order in favour of Jain Carrying Corporation from the High Court. He then laughed in such a ridiculous manner that the non-petitioner lost his mental equilibrium and that led him to issue the disputed press notes to Rajasthan Patrika and Teesara Prahar. Now, according to him, the writ petition had been dismissed on 13.2.93. He does not give the date on which show cause notices were ordered to be issued in the Special appeal. He claims to have met Rajendra Kumar on 7.03.1992 who is said to have made a boast that "by the strength of wealth he has won the favour of all authorities and also secured order in favour of Jain Carrying Corporation from the High Court." It is stated that "he lost mental equilibrium and that led him to issue the disputed press notes". 16. Firstly, it is surprising that Rajendra Prasad should have made such a boast at all. No time and place of alleged conversation, at which the said boast is said to have been made, is given. It is only a self serving assertion of Shri Badri Bhatia with no other material to support him. Admittedly, Shri Badri Bhatia was conducting the proceedings in the capacity of the Secretary of the Transporters Union. Had such a boast been really made, he would have definitely made a mention of this fact to other office bearers of the said Union. No affidavit has been filed by any of the office bearers of the Union to support this plea. Hence, the plea is not established. Such a self serving statement cannot be accepted at its face value and we reject the same as an attempt to built an artificial plea in defence. 17. Secondly, on his own showing Shri Badri Bhatia met Rajendra Prasad on 7.03.1992. Hence, the plea is not established. Such a self serving statement cannot be accepted at its face value and we reject the same as an attempt to built an artificial plea in defence. 17. Secondly, on his own showing Shri Badri Bhatia met Rajendra Prasad on 7.03.1992. Had he been really hurt, depressed and frustrated by the alleged conversation between him and Rajendra Prasad, he would have immediately come out with the news item in the month of March, 1992 itself. What he perhaps wishes to convey is that he was provoked by alleged boast of Rajendra Prasad to give vent to his feelings of frustration and depression. But, it does not appear to be true because he had almost three months cooling period and the news item was published on 9.06.1992. This would show that he had a lot of time to reflect and ponder upon the whole issue and the irresistible conclusion is that the news item was published, not in a temporary flush of depression or disappointment, but in a cool calculated manner. 18. In the conclusion, we are of the firm view that both the contemners intentionally and deliberately committed grossest Contempt of this Court by making most serious aspersions against three honourable Judges of this Court by expressly suggesting that the orders passed by them were procured by power of pelt and not on merits. In doing so, they have scandalized the Court and have also tried to obstruct the Course of justice because the D.B. Special Appeal was still pending. 19. Now, the question is if the apologies tendered by two contemners arc really unconditional and deserve to be accepted. An apology is an act of contrition, an act of penitence and remorse. An apology to be accepted must be offered at the earliest opportunity and in good grace. If it is not tendered in good grace and is hedged in by unsubstantiated pleas in justification of the impugned acts of Contempt, then it cannot be accepted to purge the guilt. This is more so when Judges of the highest Court in the State are attacked in a most scurrilous manner and oblique motives are attributed to them in a news paper having circulation in as many as three important districts of the State. Journalists are expected to act with restraint. In the present case, this restraint has been altogether thrown to winds. Journalists are expected to act with restraint. In the present case, this restraint has been altogether thrown to winds. The apologies tendered before us are not genuine and bonafide feelings of penitence and remorse but appear to be more of a shield in defence. To our mind, tendering of apology is not a panacea in each and every case. We are supported in our view by the dictum in Lal Bihari vs. State (1), wherein it was observed as follows: "In cases of Contempt of the Court is not bound to accept an apology or even an unqualified apology. The question whether it should do so or not would depend on circumstances of such particular case. A Court can refuse to accept an apology which it does not believe to be genuine, it can even it accepts the apology, commit an offender to prison or otherwise punish him. Further more there cannot be both justification and apology, The two things are incompatible. Where the apology does not seem to be so much the out-powering of a penitent heart moved by feeling of remorse and overcome by a sense of ones own guilt, as a convenient device clutched up by a person driven and compelled by the logic of events to resort to a measure which seems to him to provide the only mode of escape from the impending doom or as a last desperate throw in a game of chance hazarded by him at a time when all else has failed and everything seems to be lost, it should be considered to be merely an apology for an apology. It deserves to be given short shrift at the hands of the Court." We are, therefore, of the firm view that apologies tendered by two contemners cannot be accepted. They do not appear to be bonafide or genuine but appear to have been tendered with the sole motive of escaping punishment because the contemners must have known that they had really no defence and the Contempt committed by them was of the gravest type. We may here state that feelings of repentance and contrition flow from heart. Words can always disguise true feelings. Contemporaneous conduct and deeds are the most eloquent testimony of ones feelings and words expressing feelings of penitence and regret may not be truly representative of real feelings, one may entertain. Now. We may here state that feelings of repentance and contrition flow from heart. Words can always disguise true feelings. Contemporaneous conduct and deeds are the most eloquent testimony of ones feelings and words expressing feelings of penitence and regret may not be truly representative of real feelings, one may entertain. Now. what is the contemporaneous conduct of the two respondents. Both are journalists and are people well versed in worldly affairs, they are people, who must know men and matters. Respondent Manish Vyas wants us to believe that as soon as he learnt of the publication in question, he removed Badri Bhatia implying thereby that he felt repentant even at that stage. If that had been true, he would have immediately come out with apology, duly published in his paper and would have moved written applications/would have written letters to the three Honble Judges, expressing regrets for the offending press reports. It does not appear that he at all did so. He had opportunities of doing so, when he received notices of the Contempt Petition or at any rate during the period, this petition has remained pending. It does not appear that he did any of these things. Hence, we are of the opinion that so called unconditional apology is not bonafide and genuine and appears to be a ruse and stratagem to escape punishment. The same is the case with Shri Badri Bhatia. He has claimed that the Rajasthan Patrika (one of the leading dailies of the State) refused to publish the offending matter and duly edited it. Shri Bhatia should have then realised the enormity of his conduct in giving the offending press reports. He had opportunities and opportunities to express his apologies either through news papers including Teesara Prahar or by writing letters of remorse and penitence to the Honble three Judges. It does not appear that he did any of these things to purge him of the contempt. Thus, we find that professions of apology in the replies filed to notices of contempt do not match with the deeds and conduct of the respondents. We, therefore, reject these so called apologies, professed in the written replies, which simultaneously make attempts to establish innocence on the part of the two respondents. 20. Thus, we find that professions of apology in the replies filed to notices of contempt do not match with the deeds and conduct of the respondents. We, therefore, reject these so called apologies, professed in the written replies, which simultaneously make attempts to establish innocence on the part of the two respondents. 20. In view of what we have stated above, we find both the contemners viz Shri Badri Bhatia and Shri Manish Vyas guilty of Contempt of this Court, punishable under sec. 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Since, Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jaisalmer did not make any reference with regard to contempt of his court and the Registrar also did not choose to refer the matter with regard to portion (iii) of the news item, we have refrained from making any order with regard to the said contempt. 21. Now, comes the question of sentence. L earned counsel for the respondents have urged that this Court should show mercy on them and should not inflict heavy punishment. Reference was made to the classic speech of Portia in Merchant of Venice: "The quality of mercy is not strained. It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven upon the place beneath: it is twice blessed. It blessed him that gives and him that takes." It was urged that mercy is an attribute of God and we the priests in this temple of justice, should season justice with mercy. It was submitted that to Mercy, Pity, Peace and Love, all pray in their distress, for Mercy, Pity, Peace and Love is God-our Father dear. 22. Reference was also made to Barad Kant Misra (2), and Ramch-andra Mahapatra (3), and Umed Singh vs. Bahadur Singh (4). As against this learned Addl. Advocate General submitted that the contemners deserve to be punished with a stern hand. 23. We have considered the rival contentions. Mercy should temper justice. Justice without mercy would be justice without soul. However, misplaced sense of mercy may render the whole justice delivery system ineffective and may encourage people to commit/repeat this sort of offence. 24. We are aware that power to punish for contempt large as it is, must always be exercised cautiously, wisely and with circumspection. Indiscriminate use of this power in anger or irritation would not help to sustain dignity or status of the Court. 24. We are aware that power to punish for contempt large as it is, must always be exercised cautiously, wisely and with circumspection. Indiscriminate use of this power in anger or irritation would not help to sustain dignity or status of the Court. A heavy hand is wasted severity where a lighter sentence may serve the ends of justice. 25. In Barad Kant, the contemner was in the sombre evening of his official career. He had made offending remarks in memoranda submitted to superior authorities. He did not publish these remarks publicly in news papers. Hence, he was let off with a sentence of fine only. In Ummed Singh, the contemner Bahadur Singh tendered unqualified apology and did not try to raise any controversy about facts, as has been done by the two contemners before us. In these circumstances, the contemner was let off with a paltry fine of Rs. 100/-. In Ramchandra Mahapatra scurrilous allegations were made against a Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The allegations were contained in a letter. Unqualified apology was tendered at the earliest opportunity. After he was found guilty, he had been on bail for eight long years. At the time, the offending letter was written, the contemner was under a great mental stress because of proceedings initiated by his wife, who had abandoned him. In these circumstances, the Apex Court accepted the unqualified apology tendered before the High Court and reitented before the Apex Court and set aside the sentence passed against him. In all the aforesaid cases, mitigating circumstances existed. None exist in the present case. 26. We, therefore, convict the two respondents of Contempt of this Court under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentence each one of them viz. Shri Badri Bhatia and Manish Vyas to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment of one month each.