JUDGMENT V.K. Gupta, CJ. - Publication in the Punjab Kesri in its issue of 27th December, 2004 (on its front page) under the caption of "Shiksha Mantri Ki Peshi Aaj" is the subject matter of these criminal contempt proceedings initiated suo motu by this Court. The text of the aforesaid publication in Hindi is reproduced herein below verbatim which reads this: Hindi matter Translated into English the aforesaid Hindi test reads thus:- "With respect to the Education Minister Smt. Asha Kumari there are gossips doing the rounds in Chamba. Tomorrow she has scheduled to appear in the Court of learned District & Sessions Judge. She has also filed an application for some relief in the High Court. This application for appropriate relief may have been filed at the behest or at the instance of the State Government. Rumours are afloat with respect to this aspect of the matter. Tomorrow, other 12 accused persons would also appear in Chamba Court. The leaders of the State BJP have tried their best in the Legislative Assembly but failed. Tomorrow, in the State High Court there shall be a legal battle between the Government and the law. In this battle the State Government is bound to win in Chamba Court the accused persons will be granted another adjournment. This will happen ? But people are bewildered. Some of them have started saying that money can buy justice. Also that justice supports the ruling party. If Government lawyers have their limits, the Judges also have their limits." 2. This Court feeling prima facie that the aforesaid publication amount to committing contempt of this Court issued Rule against both the respondents vide its order dated 28th December, 2004. Respondent No. 1 is the Editor of the newspaper Punjab Kesri Respondent No. 2 is the Author of the publication. 3. Both the respondents have filed their replies to the Rule. 4. In so far as respondent No. 1 is concerned, apart from tendering unconditional, unqualified and sincere apology to this Court for the aforesaid publication, which he stated was inadvertently published and which escaped the attention of the news Editor, respondent No. 1 has also stated that he caused an apology to be carried out in the front page of the newspaper. According to him, the publication of the aforesaid news item was a clear lapse on the part of the newspaper for which he accepted full responsibility. The newspaper and respondent No. 1 have viewed this matter most seriously and have blacklisted respondent No. 2 and also initiated an inquiry against him in the interregnum have placed him under immediate suspension. 5. Respondent no. 2 has also filed his reply in answer to the Rule and apart from tendering his unqualified apology with respect to the news item in question, has submitted that the news item was authored by him on the basis of rumours prevalent in Chamba Town during the period in question. His defence is that he directly typed the draft matter on the computer. This draft was to be edited before transmitting it to Jullandhar, the place of publication of newspaper, but without him editing it, due to sheer inadvertence and mistake it was transmitted in the form it was drafted. 6. As is clear evident from a bare reading of the aforesaid news item, the offending portion that in the legal battle between the Government and "Justice" in the High Court, the Government is bound to win and that justice can be purchased with money and that justice dispensation system always favours the Government an d that there are limits as far as Judges are concerned, is patently contemptuous in nature. The act of respondent No. 2 in intentionally authorising the aforesaid publication is nothing short of committing a criminal contempt of this Court and lowering the majesty of justice because respondent No. 2 by the aforesaid publication has compromised with the dignity of the Institution of Judiciary. The publication tends to bring into disrepute the Institution of Judiciary. Respondent No. 2 in reckless arid irresponsible manner, whether with or without malice, authored the aforesaid publication. At one stage he had undertaken before this Court to supply the names of some people who, according to respondent No. 2 were spreading the gossips and rumours in the town. This undertaking was given by him to substantiate his stand that what had been written by him was based on these grossips and rumours. This undertaking was recorded in our order dated 8th June, 2005. However, respondent No. 2 failed to provide any such information either by way of his supplementary affidavit or otherwise. This undertaking was given by him to substantiate his stand that what had been written by him was based on these grossips and rumours. This undertaking was recorded in our order dated 8th June, 2005. However, respondent No. 2 failed to provide any such information either by way of his supplementary affidavit or otherwise. He thus could not discharge his aforesaid undertaking. 7. Because of the aforesaid facts and based on the aforesaid reasoning there is no doubt whatsoever that it is primarily respondent No. 2 who is responsible for the publication of the above said news item. Even though respondent No. 1 is the Editor of the newspaper in question, from it reading of his reply we feel convinced that he perhaps had no direct role to play in its publication. We therefore, while dropping the contempt proceedings against respondent No. 1, hold respondent No. 2 guilty of committing contempt of this Court. 8. Having found respondent No. 2 guilty of committing contempt of this Court, we have to consider about the sentence to be imposed upon him. Even though there is no doubt that contempt committed by respondent No. 2 is very grave in nature, we find from the tone and tenor of his reply filed in the Court as well as the manner in which the proceedings were conducted on his behalf, that he has shown genuine repentance. Actually, apart from tendering unconditional and unqualified apology as is reflected in his reply, he has in the course of proceedings in the Court communicated to us his sincere feeing of genuine repentance. We therefore, feel that in the facts and circumstances of this case we should take a lenient view in so far as imposition of sentence upon him is concerned. We therefore, while holding respondent No. 2 guilty for committing contempt of this Court. Sentence him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,500/-. He shall deposit the amount of fine in the Registry of this Court within one week from today, failing which he shall suffer simple imprisonment of two weeks.