Judgment Rajesh Balia, J.-In Sri Ganganagar Hanumangarh Bhaskar, a daily newspaper, following item was reported under the Caption on 24.02.2001. 2. Under the aforesaid caption, following statement of Bhura Mal Swami and Sheopat Singh were reported as part of their address to the gathering which has reached the Collectorate of Sri Ganganagar and that gathering was addressed by these persons. It was stated in the said news item” Another statement was reported under the aforesaid caption in the news-item: 3. The petitioner Raghuveer Singh considering that aforesaid statement reported in Daily Bhaskar amounted to scandalizing and lowering the authority of the Court and tended to scandalize the Court and tended to lower the authority of the Court by creating apprehension in the minds of people regarding integrity, ability and fairness in administering the laws and justice, as well as affecting fair trial of a pending case in the Courts below results in criminal contempt of Court. He, therefore, moved the learned Advocate General seeking his sanction for moving motion of contempt before this Court. The learned Advocate General of the State of Rajasthan vide his letter dated 16.01.2002 considered the application and gave his consent in writing to file contempt petition against the non-applicants. 4. The Non-applicant No. 1 Ashish Vyas is the editor of Dainik Bhaskar, Sri Ganganagar edition. Respondents No. 2 and 3 Sheopat Singh and Bhura Mal Swami are two other persons who were reported to have made aforesaid statements while addressing gathering in front of the Collectorate on 23.02.2001. 5. In pursuance of aforesaid sanction, an application was moved before this Court on 19.01.2002. On 30.01.2002, notices were issued to the respondents to show cause as to why this contempt petition be not admitted and allowed. 6.For the precise, allegation on which the contempt proceedings are founded and in respect of which the sanction was accorded by the learned Advocate General reads as under: Allegation in respect of Bhura Mal Swami: Allegation in respect of Sheopat Singh 7.In response to the show cause notices, firstly a joint reply was submitted by the Non-petitioners No. 2 and 3, namely, Sheopat Singh and Bhura Mal Swami. Apart from alleging oblique motive on the part of the petitioner to move the present application, the Respondents No. 2 and 3 in their defence denied making of any such statement as referred in the application and as reported in “Dainik Bhaskar” and took a stand that whatever stated in the news-item is false. However, the conduct of meeting at Collectorate, Sri Ganganagar on 23.02.2001 was not denied. 8.In support of reply, separate affidavits were filed by Shri Sheopat Singh denying that he made the statement attributed to him in the newspaper by quoting the statement attributed to him. 9.Likewise, Shri Bhura Mal Swami also filed separate affidavit denying to have made statement attributed to him by quoting the statement attributed to him in his affidavit. This reply was submitted by the Respondents No. 2 and 3 on 13.03.2002. .10.After reply was submitted by the Respondents No. 2 and 3, an application was moved on .26.04.2002 on behalf of the Respondent No. 1-Editor asserting that the answering respondent has correctly reported the incident which took place as such and the answering respondent had no ill-motive or -intention to malign the judiciary. 11.He sought a direction from the Court for producing the C.I.D. report dated 09.02.2001 lying in the office of S.P., C.I.D., Sri Ganganagar in support of their contention that earlier also, they have made similar allegations in the public conference held at the residence of Shri B.S. Rana, Dist. Secretary of the Indian Trade Union Centre which was noted and reported by the C.I.D. Branch of Sri Ganganagar and report to this effect was still lying in the office of S.P., C.I.D., Sri Ganganagar. This prayer was granted by the Court on 05.05.2003. In C.I.D. report dated 09.02.2001 there were some disparaging remarks against judiciary but since that was not the subject of charge against respondents; we do not consider the same to be relevant for further consideration. 12.Thereafter on 15.07.2003, a compact disc was produced on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 Shri Ashish Vyas, editor of Dainik Bhaskar, Sri Ganganagar stating it to be video recording of the press conference held on 15.05.2002 at Sri Ganganagar by the respondent Sheopat Singh and Bhura Mal Swami. The said meeting was also telecast on E.TV (Raj.). 12.Thereafter on 15.07.2003, a compact disc was produced on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 Shri Ashish Vyas, editor of Dainik Bhaskar, Sri Ganganagar stating it to be video recording of the press conference held on 15.05.2002 at Sri Ganganagar by the respondent Sheopat Singh and Bhura Mal Swami. The said meeting was also telecast on E.TV (Raj.). 13.The compact disc of video recording was produced along with the affidavit for viewing by the Court as a measure of assisting the veracity of affidavits filed by the respective parties. The Court noticed that while the respondents to whom the statements have been attributed, had denied to have made any such statement, the Editor and co-respondents have stood by the reporting made in their respective newspapers. 14.The Court further noticed that the fact of video recording of press conference is not denied by the Respondents No. 2 and 3 and there is no objection by them to the viewing of the compact disc produced by the Respondent No. 1, by the Court. 15.Thus, by consent of the parties, the said compact disc was viewed by the Court in the presence of parties and their respective learned Counsel on 16.07.2003. The proceedings of the Court show that during the course of viewing, persons addressing the press conference were identified as Shri Sheopat Singh and Bhuramal Swami which fact was admitted by the said respondents also. The respondents Bhuramal Swami and Sheopat Singh were also present during the course of viewing of the compact disc, of video recording and their presence in the press conference and their addressing in the press conference was admitted by both the Respondents No. 2 and 3 in the Court. After viewing the compact disc, the Court directed that transcript of the press conference be prepared by the Court stenographer and its correctness be verified by the Counsel for the respondents and be kept on record. 9.16.In pursuance of aforesaid directions, the transcript of the compact disc was prepared under the supervision of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) and copy of which was given to the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 as well as learned Counsel for other respondents. Thus, transcript of video conferencing, correctness of which was duly verified by both the parties, was placed on record. Thus, transcript of video conferencing, correctness of which was duly verified by both the parties, was placed on record. 10.17.The Respondent No. 1 also submitted his reply to the contempt petition on 27.04.2002 stating that in fact Shri Bhuramal Swami and Sheopat Singh had made the statements against the judiciary and the statement made by these persons have only been correctly reported in the newspaper with a view to draw the attention of the judiciary as to how it is being looked at by these leaders. It was submitted that the Respondent No. 1 himself has not done anything which amounts to contempt of this Court. The Respondent No. 1 further said that he has only reported the event which had happened in fact as a journalist without any other intention in his mind and heart. 118.In support of this assertion that news reporting has been correctly made, the Respondent No. 1 placed on record copy of “Rajasthan Patrika” Sri Ganganagar edition dated 24.02.2001 and also submitted affidavits of Radhey Shyam, Yashpal Singh, Tribhuwan and Govind Tatia who were the persons reported to be present in the meeting dated 23.02.2001 in which aforesaid statements were allegedly made by Shri Bhuramal Swami and Shri Sheopat Singh respectively. .19.In support of correctness of his statement, the Respondent No. 1 also referred to the reporting in other local newspaper “Dainik Seema Kiran”, Sri Ganganagar dated 25.02.2001. It was stated in the reply of the Respondent No. 1 that in the present contempt petition when the Respondents No. 2 and 3 filed reply and stated that they have not given any such statement, it was taken note of by .the press reporters, journalists and it was reported that the communist leaders have lost reliability and in future the newspapers shall take care while publishing the statement of communist leaders. 120.A rejoinder was submitted by the Respondents No. 2 and 3 stating that the affidavits submitted along with the reply of the Respondent No. 1 be not taken into consideration as the same have been given by the persons having some interest in the Respondent No. 1 and are not reliable. 121.With the aforesaid material on record, no further opportunity was asked by either of the parties to produce any evidence and the matter was heard in absence of other evidence and cross-examination of deponent of the affidavits submitted by either parties. 121.With the aforesaid material on record, no further opportunity was asked by either of the parties to produce any evidence and the matter was heard in absence of other evidence and cross-examination of deponent of the affidavits submitted by either parties. Three questions arise for decision in this case: .(i) Whether statement published in “Dainik Bhaskar” dated 23.02.2001 published from Sri Ganganagar amounts to criminal contempt? .(ii) Whether editors liability for whatever is published in the newspaper is absolute or he is not liable for faithful reproduction of the statement made by somebody else in the news reporting? (iii) Whether it is proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of material on record that Respondents No. 2 and 3 did make the statements attributed to them respectively so as to hold them liable for contempt? 22.We shall first consider whether publication in question amounts to criminal contempt independent of the fact that no contention raised about the same by the parties. 23.The Criminal Contempt has been defined in Section 2 © of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1971) to mean publication by words spoken or written or written or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise or any matter or any other act whatsoever which- (i)(a) scandalize or tends to scandalize, .(b) 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 proceedings; or (iii) (a) interferes or tends to interfere with, (b) or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner. 24.It shall be apposite to remind ourselves that proceedings for punishing anyone for contempt of Court is not for the purpose of protecting either the Court as a whole or the individual Judges of the Court from a repetition of the attach, but of protecting the public who repose implicit trust in administration of justice by the Courts impartially and in fair manner. It is for maintenance and protecting their trust which is very fundamental for administration of justice in any society governed by the rule of law. It is for maintenance and protecting their trust which is very fundamental for administration of justice in any society governed by the rule of law. Unless essential safeguard to the dignity of the Court and to protect it from any attack from anyone, which would undermine its dignity and lower the Courts prestige in the eyes of common-man is provided, it results directly in undermining and destroying the public trust in administration of justice. 25.Scandalizing the Court in the context of criminal contempt has been referred to in Halsburys Laws of England, fourth edition, volume 9. Any action done or writing publishing which is calculated to bring a Court or a Judge into contempt or to lower his authority or to interfere with the due course of justice or the lawful process of the Court, is a contempt of Court. Thus, scurrilous attack on a Judge or a Court or attacks on the personal character of a Judge are punishable contempts. The punishment is inflicted not for the purpose of protecting either the Court as a whole or the individual Judges of the Court from a repetition of the attack, but for protecting the public and especially those who either voluntarily or by compulsion are subject to the jurisdiction of the Court, from the mischief they will suffer if the authority of the Tribunal is undermined or impaired. 26.In the case of Brahma Prakash Sharma vs. State of Utter Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 10 the Supreme Court speaking through Honble Mr. Justice B.K. Mukherjea, as he then was stated object and purpose of exercise of contempt jurisdiction almost in similar way. He said:-“The summary jurisdiction exercised by superior Courts in punishing contempt of their authority exists for the purpose of preventing interference with the course of justice and for maintaining the authority of law as is administered in the Courts. The object of contempt proceedings is not to afford protection to Judges personally from imputation to which they may be exposed as individuals; it is intended to be a protection to the public whose intere