ORDER 1. This is a case in which this Court took cognizance of contempt of a subordinate Court without any reference or motion, acting suo motu. A report appeared in a weekly newspaper called "Amar Jagat" published from Morena and also Agra in its issue dated 17th May, 1993. A copy of that newspaper was received by post at Gwalior Bench of the High Court and was placed by the Registry for perusal. The report was to the following effect:- ftyk tt us eksVh jde Mdkjh eqjSukA ftyk tt eqjSuk Jh ih- lh- vxzoky us xr 15 ebZ dks Jh usehpUn tSu }kjk yEch jde u feyus ij Jh }kfjdk izlkn ds }kjk vius yMds dks O;kikj [kqyokus ij dsl dks Jh usehpUn tSu ds foi{k esa dj fn;k gSA D;ksafd Jh }kfjdk izlkj ls mUgksaus yEch jde vius iq= ds O;kikj gsrq yh Fkh ,slk cryk;k x;k gSA Jh usehpUn tSu dk dCtk gksrs gq, Hkh dsl muds foi{k esa dj fn;k gSA vr% ,sls Hkz"V vf/kdkjh dk 'kh/kz gh LFkkukUrj.k vko';d gSA Jh vxzoky vius dks cgqr gh bZekunkj dgrs gSaA 2. There was no reference from District Judge, Morena nor any motion by Advocate General, which are the two usual modes in which cognizance of contempt of subordinate Court may be taken by the High Court, vide Section 15(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter called the Act). Section 15(2) of the Act may be reproduced : "15. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (2) In the case of any criminal contempt of a subordinate court, the High Court may make action on a reference made to it by the subordinate court or on a motion made by the Advocate General, or, in relation to a Union Territory, by such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify in this behalf." 3. A perusel of Section 15(1) of the Act on the other hand would show that it expressly mentions a third mode for taking cognizance of contempt, when the contempt is of the High Court itself, leaving aside for the moment contempt of the Supreme Court. Section 15(1) is as follows :- "15. Cognizance of Criminal contempt in other cases. A perusel of Section 15(1) of the Act on the other hand would show that it expressly mentions a third mode for taking cognizance of contempt, when the contempt is of the High Court itself, leaving aside for the moment contempt of the Supreme Court. Section 15(1) is as follows :- "15. Cognizance of Criminal contempt in other cases. - (1) In the case of a criminal contempt, other than a contempt referred to in Section 14, the Supreme Court, or the High Court may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by, (a) the Advocate General, or (b) any other person, with the consent in writing of the Advocate General, or (c) in relation to the High Court for the Union Territory of Delhi, such Law Officer as the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify in this behalf, or any other person, with the consent in writing of such Law Officer." It will thus be seen that third mode given in Section 15(1) is that the High Court may take action on its own motion. Could this third mode be utilized when the contempt is a contempt of a subordinate Court? 4. There is no doubt that the newspaper report in question was highly contemptuous. The allegation made in the report was that the District Judge, Morena Shri P. C. Agarwal, had swallowed a fat sum of money from one Dwarkaprasad and decided the case against the other party Nemichand Jain in a litigation of his Court. Of late, yellow journalism, particularly at small district places, has been indulging in acts of blackmail and intimidation upon officials of various Government departments and now not sparing even the members of the subordinate judiciary. Such newspapers have little income from journalism. Their raison d'etre is such false reports and when such reports are published particular care is taken to see that copies of the newspaper reach the hands of the official defamed and also his superior authorities. Coming back to the question of mode of taking cognizance, the point needing consideration is, does omission in Section 15(2) about the mode of taking suo motu cognizance, indicate a legislative intention to debar the High Court from taking cognizance in that mode of any contempt of a subordinate court? 5. Section 10 of the Act is also pertinent for consideration. 5. Section 10 of the Act is also pertinent for consideration. It is as follows :- "Section 10. Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts. - Every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercise in respect of contempts of itself : Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt of alleged to have been committed in respect of a Court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)." This provision makes powers of the High Court to punish for contempt of a subordinate Court co-extensive and congruent with its power to punish for its own contempt, not only in regard to quantum or pre-requisites for punishment, but also in the matter of procedure and practice. In other words, if the High Court can suo motu take cognizance of contempt of itself, the High Court has the same power to take suo motu cognizance of contempt of its subordinate Courts; vide Section 10. It is hence wrong to read Section 15(2) in isolation. On a harmonious construction of that provision with Sections 10 and 15(1), the conclusion which inevitably follows is that the High Court may take cognizance even on its own motion of the contempt of a subordinate Court'. This position was authoritatively laid down by the Supreme Court in S.K. Sarkar, Member, Board of Revenue, U. P. v. V. C. Mishra in (1981) 1 SCC 436 . It was further laid down by the Supreme Court in this decision that the mode of taking suo motu cognizance of contempt of a subordinate court, should be resorted to sparingly where the contempt concerned is of a grave and serious nature; because frequent use of suo motu power may render procedural safeguards provided in sub-section (2) of Section 15 otiose. Considering the kind of language used in the newspaper report in question and particularly the use of the word "DAAKARI" and also the use of facts of a litigation to build up story of alleged corruption, we thought the newspaper report in question to be highly contemptuous and scurrilous in character to exercise our suo motu cognizance. 6. Considering the kind of language used in the newspaper report in question and particularly the use of the word "DAAKARI" and also the use of facts of a litigation to build up story of alleged corruption, we thought the newspaper report in question to be highly contemptuous and scurrilous in character to exercise our suo motu cognizance. 6. Contempt notices were directed to be issued to two persons whose names appeared in the press line of the newspaper, namely to Jinendra Kumar Jain said to be editor, publisher and owner and to S. C. Jain said to be the editor, to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt. Both have appeared in this Court and have tendered written apologies. The story set up in the apologies is that a correspondent of the newspaper had sent the said report which was published in the paper by inadvertence. As soon as the falsity of the information contained in the newspaper report came to the knowledge of the contemners, they got a written apology published in their newspaper in the issue dated 7th June, 1993. It was also claimed that the newspaper has now stopped accepting any report for publication from the said correspondent. 7. One Dwarka Prasad also appeared before us and filed his own affidavit along with some documents. He stated that he is Dwarka Prasad Jain mentioned in the newspaper report in question. His sons have brought a suit against one Nemi Chand Jain in the Court of District Judge, Morena in which the District Judge has on 15-5-1993 granted temporary injunction in favour of his sons. The contemner Shikhar Chand Jain is son and the other contemner Jinendra Kumar Jain is Samdhi of the said Nemi Chand Jain. It was in order to pressurise, insult and defame the District Judge Shri P. C. Agarwal that the contemners purposely and maliciously published the newspaper report in question as a reprisal to the grant of temporary injunction by him. 8. We are satisfied that the apologies have been tendered by the contemners with the sole view to get away lightly for the misdeeds committed by them. The story of some correspondent getting the newspaper report in question published in the paper, appears to have been invented. Not even the bare name of the alleged correspondent was disclosed in the story. We are satisfied that the apologies have been tendered by the contemners with the sole view to get away lightly for the misdeeds committed by them. The story of some correspondent getting the newspaper report in question published in the paper, appears to have been invented. Not even the bare name of the alleged correspondent was disclosed in the story. The close relationship of the contemners to Nemichand Jain, one of the parties to the litigation, could not also be denied. We are satisfied that the newspaper report in question was published by the contemners making use of the press as weapon to defame and chastise a Judge, just because he had passed an unfavourable order. Charging presiding Judge of a Court as corrupt and that too by giving it a wide publicity in a newspaper report was undoubtedly a very gross and blatant kind of contempt. The contemners claimed that they had published correction in their newspaper dated 7th June, 1993, stating that newspaper report dated 17th May, 1993, relating to District Judge, Morena was baseless and false. Such publication of correction, even if it was really made, did not wipe out the wrong already committed. It was like applying plaster after breaking one's limbs. 9. In the case of National Textile Workers' Union v. P. R. Ramkrishnan, in AIR 1983 SC 759 , a contemner had published an article in a newspaper charging four High Court Judges of Madras High Court with corruption. The Supreme Court took notice of the matter, when in fact it was open to the High Court itself to have taken action for its own contempt. The contemner tendered apology before the Supreme Court with an undertaking to publish it in the press. But the contemner again published an article, again charging the High Court Judges with corruption. The contemner's entire conduct and writings were held to constitute a serious interference with the administration of justice and contempt. The Supreme Court visited the contemner with 3 months' simple imprisonment and a maximum fine of Rs. 2,000/-. 10. The apologies tendered before us by the contemners Jinendra Kumar Jain and Shikhar Chand Jain in our view are insincere and device to get lighter punishments. The Supreme Court visited the contemner with 3 months' simple imprisonment and a maximum fine of Rs. 2,000/-. 10. The apologies tendered before us by the contemners Jinendra Kumar Jain and Shikhar Chand Jain in our view are insincere and device to get lighter punishments. We would have sentenced the contemners to imprisonment but considering the circumstance that one of the contemners is a young man aged just 22 years and regard being had also to the fact that the apologies were tendered promptly without any delay, we are of the view that purpose of this action would be achieved by sentencing the contemners to substantial fines. We accordingly sentence contemners Jinendra Kumar Jain and Shikhar Chand Jain to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. The contemners are given two months' time from to day to pay the fines.