AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (8) TMI 968
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Court. Background facts: 2. On 30th May, 2007 a TV news channel ' NDTV ' carried a report relating to a 'sting' operation. The report concerned itself with the role of a defence lawyer and the Special Public Prosecutor in an ongoing Sessions trial in what is commonly called the 'BMW case'. 3. On 31st May, 2007 a Division Bench of this Court, on its own motion, registered a writ petition being WP (Crl.) No. 796 of 2007 since it was of the opinion that if the reported contents were true, they raise serious issues concerning criminal justice administration. Under these circumstances, the Division Bench felt it expedient and in the interest of justice to ascertain the full facts from NDTV. 4. The Division Bench issued a direction to the Registrar General to collect all materials that may be available in respect of the telecast and also directed NDTV to preserve the original material including the CD/video pertaining to the sting operation. 5. It appears that simultaneously the learned Additional Sessions Judge before whom the BMW case was pending also instituted an inquiry into the contents of the report and on 1st June, 2007 the Managing Edito....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons were complete, the police filed a challan, charges were framed against the accused (including Mr. Nanda) and the trial commenced before the Additional Sessions Judge. 10. Among others, the prosecution cited Mr. Kulkarni as its witness, but on 30th September, 1999 he was dropped from the list of witnesses, apparently on the instructions of the police. 11. Much later, by an order dated 19th March, 2007 the learned Additional Sessions Judge suo motu issued a summons to Mr. Kulkarni to depose as a court witness. The summons was returnable on 14th May, 2007 and the telecast by NDTV is mainly concerned with the events of this period. It may be mentioned for the record that Mr. Kulkarni was apparently not served with the summons, but appeared in Court and his examination in chief was recorded on 14th and 17th May, 2007 and he was partly examined by Mr. I.U. Khan (Special Public Prosecutor in the BMW case) on 29th May, 2007. 12. Earlier, on 28th April, 2007 a sting operation was carried out by Mr. Kulkarni and Mr. Deepak Verma of NDTV in the chamber of Mr. I.U. Khan in the Patiala House Courts. Mr. Kulkarni carried a hidden camera in his shirt (a button camera) and Mr. Verma a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y. 'Mr. Kulkarni says that he met Mr. Anand, 'following him on the instructions of Ms. Poonam Agarwal and forced me to converse with me (sic) regarding the case. 19. The sum and substance of Mr. Kulkarni's affidavit is that the sting operation was masterminded by Ms. Agarwal for her ulterior purposes and to boost the TRP ratings of NDTV and that Mr. Kulkarni was 'trapped' into participation. 20. On 7th August, 2007 on a consideration of the material available, that is, the CDs, the transcripts of the various programmes, viewing of the edited and unedited footage and the affidavits on record (other than the affidavit of Mr. Kulkarni) the Court noted that meetings took place on 28th April, 2007, 6th May, 2007 and 8th May, 2007 between Mr. Sunil Laxman Kulkarni, Mr. I.U. Khan Special Public Prosecutor, Mr. R.K. Anand, Senior Advocate and learned Counsel for the accused, Mr. Sri Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate and colleague of Mr. Anand and Mr. Lovely a representative of Mr. Anand and that it was prima facie satisfied that these persons 'have willfully and deliberately tried to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings and administration of justice by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rrect view; thirdly, this Court needs to lay down the law in respect of sting or undercover operations such as the ones that we are concerned with; fourthly, it is imperative for us to appreciate the nature of criminal contempt proceedings, with particular reference to the standard and onus of proof, and finally, the video recordings that are the primary material against the alleged contemnors are not admissible in evidence and are even otherwise unreliable. Mr. Anand has also filed certain interlocutory applications, which we will be dealing with later in the judgment. Has NDTV committed contempt of Court 25. Mr. Anand submitted that the expose by NDTV on 30th May, 2007 actually cast him in a bad light in as much as aspersions were made on his professional integrity and even otherwise it attacked his professional competence. According to him, viewers were made to believe that he is capable of resorting to unethical conduct to save his client from conviction (assuming his client is guilty). By casting aspersions on him and attacking his professional integrity and competence, NDTV has prevented him from fearlessly discharging his duties as an advocate for the cause of his clie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us can be propounded, that would not affect the finding on merits given by us in respect of criminal contempt having been committed by the alleged contemnors. This is because of overwhelming and unimpeachable evidence on record beckoning and calling for maintaining the purity of the stream of justice especially when it is sought to be polluted by those having a pivotal role within the system. 29. In support of his contention, Mr. Anand relied upon Ananta Lal Singh v. Alfred Henry Watson AIR1931Cal257 , Telhara Cotton Ginning Co. Ltd. v. Kashinath Gangadhar Namjoshi, Thirumalaiappa v. Kumaraswami AIR 1956 Mad 621, In re Bhola Nath AIR1961Pat1 , Damayanti v. S. Vaney AIR1966Bom19 , Delhi Tamil Education Association v. J. Samimalai 97(2002)DLT352 and an unreported decision of this Court H. Syama Sundara Rao v. Union of India 30. Ananta Lal Singh is important because it deals with allegations made in the mass media (in a newspaper) during the pendency of a trial. The Court noted and accepted the argument of learned Counsel that a tendency to interfere with the due course of justice may be noticed in two ways: one form of contempt (which the Court watches very narrowly) is of '....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lications which offend against the dignity of the Court, or are calculated to prejudice the course of justice, will constitute contempts. Offences of this nature are of three kinds - namely, those which (1) scandalize the Court; or (2) abuse the parties concerned in causes there; or (3) prejudice mankind against persons before the cause is heard. Under the first head fall libels on the integrity of the Court, its Judges, officers or proceedings; under the second and third heads anything which tends to excite prejudice against the parties, or their litigation, while it is pending. For example, attacks on or abuse of a party, his witnesses or solicitor, constitute contempts, though a mere libel on a party, not amounting to an interference with the course of justice, does not, the party being left to his remedy by action. 34. We will have occasion, a little later when we are dealing with the merits of the case, to consider a fourth category of offence, namely, where both parties (the prosecution and the defense) collude to defeat the course of justice thereby virtually playing a fraud upon the Court. 35. Bhola Nath is not of any importance in so far as we are concerned since tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ional duty. The threat must have a nexus with and impact on the pending judicial proceedings so as to interfere in it or tend to do so to change or alter the course of justice. It must be a real and not a casual and imaginary and its degree must be such as to set an Advocate thinking and to constrain him to throw up his brief depriving the Court of his assistance to do justice. 39. Syama Sundara Rao reiterates and reaffirms the principles mentioned in the decisions referred to above, and in a sense extends the frontiers of contempt jurisdiction. It was held: However, any attempt made by a party to pressurize the opposite party or its advocate to withdraw a plea taken in the course of proceedings pending in court, amounts to direct interference with the administration of justice. Such an attempt, in our opinion, also takes in its fold, issuance of notices and filing of applications, etc. containing scurrilous, disparaging and derogatory remarks against the opposite party and its advocate. In preventing the respondent from putting forward its defense and pleas as may be deemed by it to be relevant for the purposes of adjudicating the case in hand, it cannot be a defense t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iged to satisfy itself that the act complained of results in the advocate running a real risk of not being able to perform his duty or that there is a real prejudice that the administration of justice may be interfered with or prejudicially affected or compromised. To put it negatively, the act complained of must not have only a theoretical tendency of preventing the advocate from performing his functions fearlessly. 6. It is also the duty of the Court to protect its officers (including advocates) from being maligned or suffer calumnies of a degree that interfere with the due course of justice. 7. The principles enunciated above are applicable only in respect of pending causes or causes that are imminent. Where the proceedings have terminated, an advocate is not entitled to complain of contempt of Court, but his remedy lies in taking recourse to the normal legal channels and processes of law. 8. Similarly, there is a thin line between preventing or tending to prevent an advocate from performing his duties and heaping calumny upon him. The latter does not necessarily interfere or tend to interfere in the administration of justice and may be otherwise actio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hrough some unknown person and would bring it on record that the police and the Public Prosecutor had been influenced and bribed by the accused. A request was made in the telegram to take action against the reporter and other persons behind the conspiracy. 45. As far as Mr. Anand is concerned, he stated in his affidavit dated 3rd October, 2007 that he was handed over a file containing serious allegations of a tax fraud committed by NDTV and some other entities. He was in the process of settling a First Information Report to the police and initiating a public interest litigation in connection with the tax fraud. NDTV was aware of the fact that Mr. Anand was in possession of the relevant papers and so the telecast was made on 30th May, 2007 to deter him from bringing the tax fraud out in the open. 46. As far as we are concerned, the alleged motive behind NDTV's expose (as detailed by learned Counsel for Mr. Khan and by Mr. Anand) is rather thin and in any case, irrelevant. NDTV or its reporter may or may not have had a grouse or a grudge against Mr. Anand or Mr. Khan but that cannot be used as a justification by them for committing contempt of Court. The motive may have som....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It was submitted that NDTV should not have used a clandestine method of collecting 'news' and it ought to have telecast his version of the events and his comments on the sting operation, which it did not, except after the event. 48. We are not really concerned with journalistic norms or how the mass media 'behaves' in a given situation. This is really a matter that falls within the domain of journalists and broadcasters and their disciplinary bodies. The Courts come into the picture only if there is an allegation of transgression of the law by the media. Similarly, if there is an allegation of defamation by the media against an individual, he has a right to approach the Courts to redress his grievances. The Courts are not and cannot be expected to deal with subjective issues of bias, attitude, behavior etc. in reporting events. 49. However, since considerable arguments were advanced on the role of the media in matters such as the present, we think it appropriate to explain the legal limits for the benefit of those concerned. 50. There is no doubt, as observed by the Supreme Court in Rajendra Sail v. M.P. High Court Bar Association 2005CriLJ2585 that the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Bengal 2005CriLJ1416 wherein the Supreme Court deprecated the practice of a 'trial by media' since it certainly interferes in the administration of justice. In this case, anticipatory bail in a dowry death case was declined by the Calcutta High Court and while a similar petition was pending in the Supreme Court, a magazine brought out an interview with the family of the deceased extensively giving their version of the events. This was deprecated by the Supreme Court. Similarly, in State of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi (1997)8SCC386 the Supreme Court observed that 'A trial by press, electronic media or public agitation is the very antithesis of the rule of law. 56. However, what is of limited importance from M.P. Lohia in so far as we are concerned is whether the Supreme Court gave its assent to the principle of 'strict liability contempt'. This is so because it is not clear from a reading of the decision whether or not the magazine was aware of the pendency of the proceedings before the Supreme Court. It is quite possible that the magazine unknowingly took an incorrect decision to publish the interview and invited strict liability contempt. 57. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e done. Indeed, it is sometimes largely because of facts discovered and brought to light by the press that criminals are brought to justice. The private individual is adequately protected by the law of libel should defamatory statements published about him be untrue, or if any defamatory comment made about him is unfair. This court does not consider that any real complaint can be made about the press campaign in July, 1966, eighteen months before the trial. 60. The second issue related to an interview of Savundra in February, 1967 shortly after his return to England. The Court observed that at that time it surely would have been obvious to everyone that he was about to be arrested and tried on charges of gross fraud. Commenting on the interview, it was held, 'It must not be supposed that proceedings to commit for contempt of court can be instituted only in respect of matters published after proceedings have actually begun. No one should imagine that he is safe from committal for contempt of court if, knowing or having good reason to believe that criminal proceedings are imminent, he chooses to publish matters calculated to prejudice a fair trial. On any view the television i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed a charge sheet after thirteen years of investigation, which included three years of 'investigative journalism' by the media. In a petition against the framing of charges, it was conceded by learned Counsel appearing for the CBI that there was no evidence showing the receipt of bribe money, but the CBI was on the trail for gathering such evidence. In this context, the Court observed: This case is a nefarious example which manifestly demonstrates how the trial and justice by media can cause irreparable, irreversible and incalculable harm to the reputation of a person and shunning of his family, relatives, and friends by the society. He is ostracized, humiliated and convicted without trial. All this puts at grave risk due administration of justice. It is common knowledge that such trials and investigative journalism and publicity of pre-mature, half baked or even presumptive facets of investigation either by the media itself or at the instance of Investigating Agency has almost become a daily occurrence whether by electronic media, radio or press. They chase some wrong doer, publish material about him little ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to be tried in an atmosphere free from prejudice or else the trial may be vitiated on this ground alone. 67. On the impact of post-decision interviews pending an appeal (or confirmation as in this case) the Court observed: Showering praise on a judgment while its confirmation was sub-judice would certainly amount to creating prejudice in the mind of the general public and would make the task of the court very difficult. In such a case if the High Court comes to a different conclusion it will be faced with an additional burden of dispelling the impression from the public mind that the approach adopted by the lower court was correct. 68. In Brig. E.T. Sen v. Edatata Narayanan AIR1969Delhi201 the allegation was that pending the trial of a complaint for libel, the respondents carried out a persistent one-sided press campaign against the cause of the petitioner with a view to poisoning the mind of the general public and thereby hampering the course of justice. Among the allegations made by the petitioner was that the report of the Court proceedings was inaccurate and misleading and there was a display of headlines of a scaring and sensational character. In this co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....article in respect of which the Attorney-General sought an injunction from publication. On going through the draft article, the Court was of the opinion that the only effect of its publication would be to mobilize public opinion on the children's behalf and that the purpose of the publication was to affect the outcome of the pending litigation, in that the manufacturer would be persuaded to settle for a higher figure than it would be otherwise minded. 72. Given this background, the concern of the Court was ensuring that justice would be administered impartially. The Court considered the impact of the proposed publication on the administration of justice and concluded that there are three ways in which due and impartial administration of justice may be affected: first, it may affect and prejudice the mind of the tribunal itself; second it may affect witnesses who are to be called. 'In an extreme case the comment might amount to a threat to the witness sufficient to deter him from giving evidence at all, and even where the comment is temperate and in no sense threatening, it is well known that witnesses often have difficulty in reconstructing the events of an occurrence so....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tionally established courts of criminal or civil jurisdiction for the determination of disputes as to their legal rights and liabilities; secondly, that they should be able to rely on obtaining in the courts the arbitrament of a tribunal which is free from bias against any party and whose decision will be based on those facts only that have been proved in evidence adduced before it in accordance with the procedure adopted in courts of law; and thirdly that once the dispute has been submitted to a court of law, they should be able to rely on their being no usurpation by any other person of the function of that court to decide it according to law. Conduct which is calculated to prejudice any of these three requirements or to undermine the public confidence that they will be observed is contempt of court. 76. Finally, on the issue of responsible journalism, Mr. Anand cited the ten principles enunciated in Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd. [1999] 4 All ER 609. These principles are: (a) The seriousness of the allegation. The more serious the charge, the more the public is misinformed and the individual harmed, if the allegation is not true. (b) The natur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....investigative journalism' or as a fact finder. The matter then rests entirely within the domain of the Court, litigants and their lawyers ' no matter how long the litigation lasts. The media ought to keep its hands off an 'active' case. 5. It follows from the above that before a cause is instituted in a Court of law, or is otherwise not imminent, the media has full play in the matter of legitimate 'investigative journalism'. This is in accord with our Constitutional principle of freedom of speech and expression and is in consonance with the right and duty of the media to raise issues of public concern and interest. This is also in harmony with a citizen's right to know particularly about events relating to the investigation in a case, or delay in investigation or soft- pedaling on investigations pertaining to matters of public concern and importance. 6. When a cause is pending in Court, the media may only report fairly, truly, faithfully and accurately the proceedings in the Court, without any semblance of bias towards one or the other party. The media may also make a fair comment in a pending cause without violating the sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for relief either by way of an injunction or for damages in a case of 'trial by media'. Such being the reality, we are of the opinion that the Courts have a great responsibility and, therefore, need to be far more vigilant and proactive in protecting the rights and reputation of an individual from an unwarranted 'trial by media'. In a sense, the Courts have to energize the rule of law. While this may add to the burden of our criminal Courts, we are of the view that it is imperative for the Courts to protect a citizen from what may appear to be victimization ' this is certainly the duty if not an obligation of Courts. This is all the more important in a pending matter. For example, if a person is arrested on the suspicion of having committed a crime, it is not the function of the media to 'declare' him (by implication) innocent or guilty ' that is within the exclusive domain of the judiciary. But if the accused is subjected to a 'trial', either through the print or audio-visual medium, it may subconsciously affect the judgment of the judge, and that may well be to the prejudice of the accused ' who is, in our justice delivery system, pres....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce was made to the following passage from Brannan v. Peek [1947] 2 All ER 572: The court observes with concern and disapproval the fact that the police authority at Derby thought it right to send a police officer into a public house to commit an offence. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that, unless an Act of Parliament does so provide ' and I do not think any Act of Parliament does so provide ' it is wholly wrong for a police officer or any other person to be sent to commit an offence in order that an offence by another person may be detected. It is not right that police authorities should instruct, allow, or permit detective officers or plain clothes constables to commit an offence so that they can prove that another person has committed an offence. 84. This decision was followed in In re M.S. Mohiddin AIR 1952 Mad 561 wherein it was stated: But I have held in several cases already that there are two kinds of traps 'a legitimate trap', where an offence has already been born and is in course, and an illegitimate trap', where the offence has not yet been born and a temptation is offered to see whether an offence woul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld be violating the privacy of another person and would make itself liable for action at law. 6. A sting operation must have the sanction of an appropriate authority. Since no such authority exists in India, and until it is set up, a sting operation by a private person or agency, ought to have the sanction of a court of competent jurisdiction which may be in a position to ensure that the legal limits are not transgressed, including trespass, the right to privacy of an individual or inducement to commit an offence etc. 87. The law in India in this regard is still in the process of development, but we feel that the views expressed by us help in a better understanding of the subject and implementation of the law. 88. In Bhupendra Singh Patel v. State (CBI), Cri. M.C. No. 59/2004 decided on 10th November, 2004 a first information report was lodged against a journalist who conducted a sting operation in which he bribed the Additional Private Secretary of a Union Minister of State with the avowed object of exposing corruption at the highest level in government. While declining to quash the first information report, this Court held that immunity is given to a bribe- g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....this context, reference was also made to R v. Governor of Pentonville Prison [1989] 3 All ER 701, Mirza Akbar v. King-Emperor and Natwarlal Sakarlal Mody v. State of Bombay 26 (1984) DLT 64 and Kehar Singh v. State 1989CriLJ1 to suggest that the evidence of a conspirator cannot be relied upon without corroboration. We do not see the relevance of these decisions, particularly since Mr. Khan is said to be the victim of a conspiracy and not a co- conspirator. The evidence of a trap witness (Mr. Kulkarni in this case ' assuming he is a trap witness) is not the sole basis on which notice has been issued to the alleged contemnors. The evidence against the alleged contemnors is to be found in the chips and CDs ' and these need no corroboration if they are found to be authentic and not tampered with. 93. In R v. Looseley [2001] 4 All ER 897 the House of Lords dealt with 'fairness of proceedings' as occurring in Section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 and held that the expression 'is directed primarily at matters going to fairness in the actual conduct of the trial.' This is not limited to substantive fairness but also includes procedural fairness....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uable right but it carries with it a responsibility and a duty to be truthful and to protect the rights of others. The Division Bench noted that entrapment of any person should not be resorted to and should not be permitted. Reference was made to a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States being Keith Jacobson v. United States 503 US 540. 99. The United States Supreme Court observed that: (i) the State must not originate a criminal design and induce an innocent person to commit a crime so that he may be prosecuted; (ii) if the State does so, it is its duty to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to commit the criminal act prior to first being approached by government agents. 100. The Division Bench deplored the thought of inducing a person to commit an offence which he is not otherwise likely to or inclined to commit and then make it a part of a sting operation. The Division Bench observed that it was permissible for the media to use tools of investigative journalism but that did not permit the media to induce a person to commit a crime. 101. On the suggestion of learned Amicus Curiae appointed by it, the Division Bench proposed certain....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d that Mr. Kulkarni was not a potential witness for the prosecution when he met Mr. Khan in his chambers in Patiala House on 28th April, 2007 ' Mr. Kulkarni had already been dropped as its witness by the prosecution. When he met Mr. Khan he was summoned as a Court witness. Therefore, the two decisions relied on do not assist Mr. Khan. 105. In any event, we cannot read too much into that meeting per se since Mr. Kulkarni entered Mr. Khan's chamber uninvited and without an appointment or a notice. What would one expect Mr. Khan to do in that event except to throw Mr. Kulkarni out or behave rather civilly' Mr. Khan chose the more dignified course and he certainly cannot be faulted for that. What he can be faulted for, if at all, is the conversation that he had with Mr. Kulkarni and we will consider that issue in due course. 106. We may mention here that the Press Complaints Commission in England has drawn up a Code of Practice and item 7 thereof reads as follows: 'Journalists must not obtain or publish material obtained by using clandestine listening devices or by intercepting private telephone conversations. 107. We had noted earlier that Mr. Kulkarni had sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be easily verified from the negative. The problem would arise only if the original chip or the negative of a photograph were not available. 111. In the present case, since all the original chips (except one) are in existence, we have no hesitation in accepting the genuineness and authenticity of the video footage which led to the telecast on 30th May, 2007. But, what about the chip that has been re-recorded on, wiping out the original 112. Mr. Anand made a reference to N. Sri Rama Reddy v. Shri V.V. Giri [1971]1SCR399 which was explained by Mukharji, J in Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh AIR1986SC3 as laying down the propositions that tape recorded conversation is admissible in evidence and that if it contains the previous statement made by a witness, it may be used to contradict his evidence before the Court. 113. In Mahabir Prasad v. Surinder Kaur [1982]3SCR681 it was held that a tape recorded conversation can only be relied upon as corroborative evidence of a conversation and in the absence of evidence of any such conversation, the tape recorded conversation is indeed no proper evidence and cannot be relied upon. 114. Mr. Anand took us through Quamarul Islam v. S.K. Kant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rules by which the admissibility of such evidence should be judged. R v. Robson [1972] 2 All ER 699 was a case in which the tape recording was held admissible for the following reasons: (i) the court was required to do no more than satisfy itself that a prima facie case of originality had been made out by evidence which defined and described the provenance and history of the recordings up to the moment of production in court and had not been disturbed on cross-examination; in the circumstances that requirement had been fulfilled. (ii) the court was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the recordings were original and authentic and their quality was adequate to enable the jury to form a fair assessment of the conversations recorded in them and should not be excluded on that account. 117. It was held in Ram Singh that the tape recordings, 'as we have heard' were misleading and could not be relied on because in most places they were unintelligible and of a poor quality and of no use and so their potential prejudicial effect outweighed the evidentiary value of the recordings. 118. Reference was made to Sumitra Debi Gour v. Calcutt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 122. Neither Mr. Anand nor Mr. Khan have doubted their voice in the video clippings; they have not disputed that the video clippings contain their images; they have not disputed that the meetings in the video tapes took place with Mr. Kulkarni; they have not doubted the conversation that they had with Mr. Kulkarni. We may note that Mr. Anand has pointed out some 'errors' in the video footage such as the lips are not in sync with the words spoken at some places; there is a five second gap in the video footage; a lady suddenly appears (rather unclearly and fleetingly) when the video camera is switched on at one point of time; the counter suddenly jumps by about a thousand numbers; there is a discrepancy in the time shown in the clock at one place; the reporter stated on affidavit that Mr. Kulkarni could not switch on/off the camera, but that is belied by the fact that he switches off the camera when he goes to the toilet; at some places the voice is admittedly inaudible as is clear from the transcript provided by NDTV etc. Mr. Anand submitted that there are several more discrepancies or mistakes in the video recording leading to the conclusion that the videotapes were not re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on, meaning and inferences which were drawn are totally wrong, unfounded and totally inconsonance (sic) with the actual record that I am producing before you. Kulkarni also has used the word 'Bade Sahab' means the big officer, high officer of the police headquarter. In his deposition in the court also he had used the word Bade Saheb twice and when the explanation was sought, he explained that by bade saheb I mean senior officer of the police headquarter, it was unconnected to Mr. R.K. Anand as it has been wrongly, mischievously and calculatedly projected by you people. 125. Under the circumstances, we have to proceed on the basis that the entire video footage produced before us is genuine, authentic and unimpeachable evidence. We also say this having viewed the original chips except one, which was not preserved. 126. The fact that Mr. Anand was able to point out some discrepancies in the video footage clearly suggests that he has been given full access to all the material and so he cannot make a grievance of non compliance with the principles of natural justice in the sense that he was not given an adequate opportunity to defend himself. That apart, (as noticed above)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of Mr. Anand and Mr. Khan regarding the integrity of the video recordings and certainly that of the chips. How are criminal contempt proceedings to be dealt with' 130. Over the years, the nature of criminal contempt proceedings has been settled by various decisions of the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, Mr. Anand and learned Counsel for Mr. Khan thought it necessary to take us through some key judgments. 131. S. Abdul Karim v. M.K. Prakash 1976CriLJ641 laid down the proposition that the standard of proof required to establish a charge of criminal contempt is the same as in any other criminal proceeding. The Supreme Court did not go into the issue whether mens rea is an indispensable ingredient of the offence of contempt but observed that the Courts would be loathe in punishing a contemnor if the act or omission complained of was not willful, deliberate and, as mentioned in Debabrato Bandopadhyay v. State of West Bengal: 1969CriLJ401 'It is only when a clear case of contumacious conduct not explainable otherwise, arises that the contemnor must be punished'. This is, of course, distinguishable from a case where an innocent person is induced by certain circumstance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s v. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman [2001]2SCR471 wherein it was noted that the burden of proof is guided by the principle 'he who asserts must prove'. One of the reasons for this, as explained in Re Bramblevale Ltd. [1969] 3 All ER 1062 is that contempt of Court is an offence of a criminal character and a contemnor may be sent to prison for it. It must, therefore, be satisfactorily proved. If two equally consistent possibilities exist, it cannot be said, beyond a reasonable doubt, that an offence has been committed. Mritunjoy Das was followed in Bijay Kumar Mahanty v. Jadu 2003CriLJ841 . [See also M.R. Parashar v. Dr. Farooq Abdullah 1984CriLJ337 and Biman Bose v. State of West Bengal (2004) 13 SCC 95. Reliance was also placed upon V.G. Nigam v. Kedar Nath Gupta 1992CriLJ3576 for the proposition that willful conduct is a primary and basic ingredient of an offence of criminal contempt. 135. Two important conclusions have been given in Murray and Co. v. Ashok Kumar Newatia 2000CriLJ1394 , namely, that the contempt jurisdiction is a special jurisdiction to punish an offender for his contemptuous conduct or obstruction to the majesty of the law and that what is necessary for the imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence can still be relied upon. '' no materials can be relied upon to establish a contested fact which are not spoken to by persons who are competent to speak about them and are subjected to cross-examination by the party against whom they are sought to be used.' Relying upon L.K. Advani v. Central Bureau of Investigation 66(1997)DLT618 it was submitted that only that 'evidence' can be relied upon which is capable of being converted into legal evidence. Relying on Subhash Chand Chauhan v. C.B.I. 2005 [1] JCC 230 it was submitted that if some evidence is unproved, it cannot be relied upon. This submission was made by Mr. Anand in the context of an application being Crl. M. No. 13782 of 2007 filed by him to cross examine the reporter of NDTV. We will be dealing with this application in due course. 139. It was emphasized by Mr. Anand that if denials by an alleged contemnor are vague or general, then they should not be accepted; but in the present case, he has specifically denied the allegations made against him in considerable detail and so if an opportunity is not given to him to cross- examine the reporter, he would not be getting a fair deal and the principles....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erference in the administration of justice. It was further said, 'Contempt of court is punishable because it undermines the confidence not only of the parties to the particular litigation but also of the public as potential suitors, in the due administration of justice by the established courts of law.' 144. In Contempt of Court by C.J. Miller (3rd edition) it is said on page 324 that 'Interference with the administration of justice may also be occasioned through conduct which carries a substantial risk of influencing a witness in an improper manner.' It is further stated that, 'It has long been clear that it [is] an offence at common law to use threats or persuasion to witnesses to induce them not to appear in courts of justice, or to endeavour to persuade a witness to give evidence in a particular sense or to alter the evidence already given.' 145. Learned Counsel for NDTV referred to Balogh v. St. Albans Crown Court [1975] 1 QB 72 which is a rather interesting case that dealt with contempt in the face of the Court. This was sought to be equated with the power to 'to make an order of committal of its own motion against a person guilty of contempt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eal with such matters summarily and adopt its own procedure. The only caution that has to be observed by the Court in exercising this inherent power of summary procedure is that the procedure followed must be fair and the contemners are made aware of the charges leveled against them and given a fair and reasonable opportunity.' 148. Referring to Vinay Chandra Mishra, In re 1995CriLJ3994 the Supreme Court held that '' criminal contempt no doubt amounts to an offence but it is an offence sui generis and hence for such an offence, the procedure adopted both under the common law and the statute law in the country has always been summary.' 149. Finally, learned Amicus drew our attention to Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Indian Express Newspapers AIR2004SC456 wherein it is said, The question of contempt must be judged in a particular situation. The process of due course of administration of justice must remain unimpaired. Public interest demands that there should be no interference with judicial process and the effect of the judicial decision should not be pre-empted or circumvented by public agitation or publications. It has to be remembered that ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Constitution reads as follows: 215. High Courts to be courts of record - Every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. 153. Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 reads as follows: 2. Definitions:- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, (a) xxx (b) xxx (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) scandalises or tends to scandalise, 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) xxx 154. Nobody has any doubt that the notice was not issued in contemplation of Sub-clause (i) above and so ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an be no doubt that the contents of the CDs vividly portray the contempt alleged to have been committed by them. This is a case where, because of the nature of the material available, we cannot apply traditional defences of vagueness or lack of sufficient particularity ' the alleged contempt is very much before our eyes and within our hearing as also that of the noticees. The noticees have also viewed the contents of the original chips as well as the contents of the CDs and they are, therefore, fully aware of not only what has transpired, but also the basis on which notice was issued to them by this Court. Under the circumstances, they cannot claim to be blissfully unaware or feign ignorance of the offence that they are alleged to have committed, nor can they successfully complain of vagueness or lack of material particulars concerning their conduct or otherwise disabling them from effectually defending themselves ' the entire material is available to them in an audio-visual form. Actually, the noticees Mr. Khan (through his learned Counsel) and Mr. Anand himself have made elaborate submissions in their attempt to explain their spoken words, gestures, expressions as they ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eration. The application is, accordingly, rejected. 159. Crl. M. No. 4010 of 2008 is an application for initiating proceedings for perjury against NDTV and Ms. Agarwal for deliberately making false statements on affidavit and fabricating evidence. It is also alleged that the non-applicants have violated the undertaking given to this Court that the chips would be kept without destruction. We are not satisfied that NDTV or Ms. Agarwal deliberately made any false statement on oath so as to mislead us. There is also nothing to suggest that they fabricated false evidence, either for this purpose, or otherwise. We have found that the chips have not been tampered with and that is our only concern. If the chips are tampered with or destroyed, it may well be to the advantage of the noticees and, therefore, we feel that they should not be unduly worried about the non-preservation of one of the original chips. 160. Crl. M. No. 4011 of 2008 is an application for a direction to learned Counsel for NDTV to disclose the name of the employee or concerned officer of NDTV on whose instructions Mr. Harish Salve, Senior Advocate furnished a false clarification in this Court on 24th September, 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h, for finding the alleged contemnors guilty of criminal contempt, it is not necessary for us to go so far as to conclude that they had prejudiced or interfered with or obstructed the due course of the judicial proceeding or interfered with or obstructed the administration of justice in any other manner. It is enough for our purposes if there is sufficient material to show that their conduct was such that it had the tendency to interfere with the due course of the judicial proceeding or had the tendency to interfere with or obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner. It is, therefore, not at all necessary for us to answer the question whether the alleged contemnors had entered into any conspiracy in respect of the BMW case. 170. The first, second and fourth conclusions really need no elucidation. In so far as the third conclusion is concerned, relevant portions of the conversations between the alleged contemnors would clearly bring out the familiarity that Mr. Kulkarni had with them and that each one of them was aware of this. Having said this, we also need to study the material before us to determine whether any of the noticees are guilty of criminal contempt. W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accepted by Mr. Kulkarni) for a drink of good scotch whisky. One of the topics that Mr. Kulkarni wanted to discuss, and take the advice of Mr. Khan, was on the question whether he should accept the summons calling him as a Court witness. In fact, the conversation begins and ends on this note as is clear from the following. The conversation runs as follows: Mr. Kulkarni: Summons Bombay challa gaya thaa, ab waha se reject ho ke ayaa hua hai. Ab loon ke na loon' Baad me mere ko raat ko ghar pe'. (The summons had gone to Bombay but it has come back. Should I accept it or not' Later in the evening at the house''). Mr. Khan: Tum mere ko miloge kab, yeh batao' (Tell me, when will you meet me') Mr. Kulkarni: Aap batao kyonki mere ko ' SHO se meri baat hui hai. Aap usko ' (You let me know because ' I have spoken to the SHO'). Mr. Khan: Tum thehre kahan ho' (Where are you staying)' Mr. Kulkarni: Main to thehra hoo out of Delhi. Mr. Khan: Out of Delhi' Mr. Kulkarni: Out of Delhi, haan. Mr. Khan: Sham ke keh baje aaoge&....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... message to Mr. Khan. You may have received it). Mr. Anand: Haan ' mil gaya tha. (Yes, I received it). 176. There is then some talk about money and the cross-examination of Mr. Kulkarni. The conversation in this regard is as follows: Mr. Anand: Haan ab ' ab mujhe batao' Ab batao mere ko. (Now tell me). Mr. Kulkarni: Mujhe bola dhai crore doonga ' aap batao mere ko. (He told me that he will give two-and'a-half crore. You advise me). Mr. Anand: Hain' Mr. Kulkarni: Dhai crore. Mr. Anand: Tu paanch crore maang le. (You ask for five crore). Mr. Kulkarni: Mein paanch crore maang leta hoo. (I will ask for five crore). Mr. Anand: Tere ko cross-examine maine zaroor karna hai. (I will definitely cross-examine you). Mr. Kulkarni: Aur doosri baat ' cross-examine aap karoge mere ko' (Another thing ' you will cross-examine me)' Mr. Anand laughs. 177. There is also some conversation concerning a meeting with Mr. Khan and this is as follows: Mr. Anand: Any how tum Khan sahab se baat kar lo. (You talk to M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#39; Mr. Kulkarni: Nahi, nahi mat nikalna. (No, don't). Mr. Anand: Nahi nikalta. (I won't take you out). Mr. Kulkarni: Nahi, nahi mat nikalna' withdraw karva do na aap' jab main aapke saath hoo, jo marzi karne ke liye tayyar hoo. To yeh kaye ke liye High Court main laga diya aapne' Aur mere upar aapko itna bhi bharosa nahin hai kya' Theek hai, gussa ho jata hoo'. (No, don't. Have it withdrawn. I am with you and willing to do whatever you want. Then why has this [petition] been filed in the High Court' Do you not have faith in me' OK, I get angry sometimes'). Mr. Anand: Nahi, nahi. (No). Mr. Kulkarni: Lekin aana hai' depose karna hai. (I have to depose). Mr. Anand: Ab usse kya baat karni hai'batao' Reasonable baat karo. (What is to be said to him' Be reasonable). Mr. Kulkarni: Aap decide karo. (You decide). Mr. Anand: Tum decide karo. Woh to you decide. (You decide). 180. In the context of receiving the Court summons, the conversation between Mr. Kulkarni and Mr. Anand is as follows: Mr. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp;Mr. Anand: Hmm Mr. Kulkarni: Phir bhi maine bahar bulake unko bolne ki koshish ki. Lekin phir bhi vo unke peeche itni bheed lagi rehti hai. (I called him outside to try and speak to him, but there are still so many people with him). Mr. Anand: But natural, yaar, professional hai. (It's but natural ' he is a professional). Mr. Kulkarni: But rush xxx all the time. Mr. Kulkarni: Abhi main office main nahi aata ' main bahar utar jata hoo. (I will not come to your office just now. I will get down outside). Mr. Anand: xxx Mr. Kulkarni: Haa Mr. Anand: Talk to me around seven forty five. Mr. Kulkarni: OK Mr. Anand: OK Mr. Kulkarni: Sir ' Mr. Anand: Then we'll decide about it. 183. In the same vein, the conversation continues a little later: Mr. Kulkarni: Main aajoo bajoo main paune aath baje ' aap mere ko bula lena. (I will be around at a quarter to eight. Please call me). Mr. Anand: Give me a call at seven forty five. Mr. Kulkarni: Ji. Mr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubt about this. The case against Mr. I.U. Khan: 186. There is only one occasion when Mr. Khan and Mr. Kulkarni meet with each other and that is on 28th April, 2007 in the chamber of Mr. Khan in the Patiala House Courts. The meeting was without any appointment but it was not objected to by Mr. Khan. On the contrary, Mr. Khan and Mr. Kulkarni leave the chamber together to have a private and personal conversation. In the third sting operation, Mr. Kulkarni tells Mr. Anand that Mr. Khan is a very busy man and Mr. Anand acknowledges it. This quite clearly suggests that even though Mr. Khan is a very busy man, Mr. Kulkarni had free access to him. We have noted above that there are several references to Mr. Khan in the conversations of Mr. Kulkarni with Mr. Anand. We cannot overlook these since they suggest a tacit arrangement or at least an understanding between Mr. Khan, Mr. Anand and Mr. Kulkarni. 187. On going through the recording of the sting operation of 28th April, 2007 and on a reading of the available transcript, it is clear that Mr. Khan was very keen to examine Mr. Kulkarni as a prosecution witness (and he specifically stated so). But, apparently because of the decisi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Looking at the conversation as a whole and in its proper context, we find it difficult to accept the contention of learned Counsel for Mr. Khan that Bade Saheb has reference to one or more senior police officers. 190. On the other hand, when we watched the recording of the events of 28th April, 2007 from the button camera, we noted that towards the end of the recording, Mr. Deepak Verma asked Mr. Kulkarni about the identity of Bade Saheb and Mr. Kulkarni responded by saying that it is Mr. Anand. There is no suggestion that this part of the video recording is doctored or morphed. However, Mr. Kulkarni has stated in his affidavit dated 6th August, 2007 that Ms. Poonam Agarwal 'forced me to mean that Bade Saheb means Sh. R.K. Anand as it suits her whole story.' 191. We are not prepared to accept the affidavit of Mr. Kulkarni in this regard for three reasons. Firstly, the conversation between him and Mr. Deepak Verma was impromptu and a part of the sting operation continuum. The expression 'Bade Saheb' came up only during the sting operation. It is nobody's case that Ms. Poonam Agarwal had any prior knowledge of this expression. Secondly, there is no doubt th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the chamber of Mr. Khan clearly suggests that Mr. Khan knew that Mr. Kulkarni was in touch with Mr. Anand. In other words, all three of them knew that they were in contact with one another. 197. In the second sting operation on 6th May, 2007 at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, Mr. Kulkarni informed Mr. Anand that he had sent a message to Mr. Khan and he enquired from him (Mr. Anand) whether he had received the message. Mr. Anand replied in the affirmative. Towards the end of the conversation, Mr. Anand tells Mr. Kulkarni to talk to Mr. Khan. 198. In the conversation that Mr. Kulkarni had with Mr. Anand in his (Mr. Anand's) car on 8th May, 2007 there are several references to Mr. Khan and we need not repeat them here. 199. With the knowledge that Mr. Khan had of the familiarity that Mr. Kulkarni and Mr. Anand had, the only course open to him, as an honest prosecutor, would be to inform the prosecution (regardless of when Mr. Khan came to know of it) that one of its witnesses was more than an acquaintance of the defence lawyer. Mr. Khan does not say that he ever brought this to the notice of the prosecution. In this regard, Mr. Khan clearly failed in his duty a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tum mere ko miloge kab, yeh batao' (Tell me, when will you meet me') Mr. Kulkarni: Aap batao kyonki mere ko ' SHO se meri baat hui hai. Aap usko ' (You let me know because ' I have spoken to the SHO'). Then, Mr. Khan: Sunday ko kis waqt aaoge' (At what time will you come on Sunday)' Mr. Kulkarni: Aap batao mere ko. (You tell me). Mr. Khan: Aapko kaun time suit karta hai' (What time suits you)' Mr. Kulkarni: Koi bhi. (Anytime). Mr. Khan: Saat aur aath ke darmiyan' (Between 7 and 8)' Mr. Kulkarni: Haan. Theek hai. (Yes, OK). Finally, Mr. Kulkarni: Main, vese meri K.K. Paul se baat hui hai, lekin maine abhi tak nahi bola hoo. I have not received summons at all. Woh mere ko bata dena. (I had a talk with K.K. Paul [the Police Commissioner] but I have not told him. I have not received the summons at all. You tell me [what to do]). Mr. Khan: Kal tum aajao. (Come tomorrow). Mr. Kulkarni: Main ' huh' Woh hamare dono ki baat hogi. (That will be between us). Mr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ke it a deliberate omission that may have a very serious impact on the case of the prosecution in the Trial Court. Consequently, we have no option but to hold Mr. Khan criminally liable, beyond a shadow of doubt, for actually interfering, if not tending to interfere with the due course of the judicial proceeding, that is the BMW case, and thereby actually interfering, if not tending to interfere with the administration of justice in any other manner. 208. A reference was made by learned Amicus, though not with any great vigour, to the opinion expressed by Mr. Khan that the Trial Court could not require Mr. Kulkarni's statement to be recorded. This is merely an opinion expressed by Mr. Khan to Mr. Kulkarni and it cannot in any manner be interpreted to mean that there is any contempt of Court committed by Mr. Khan merely by expressing his opinion in private. Even if Mr. Khan had expressed this opinion publicly, it would, to our mind, not make any difference at all since it is a completely innocuous opinion. 209. We may note a submission made by learned Counsel for Mr. Khan to the effect that Mr. Khan was intimidated by the towering presence of Mr. Deepak Verma, who is said ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....karni's desire to speak directly to Mr. Nanda, without any middleman. Mr. Kulkarni also sought instructions with regard to receiving eh Court summons. After a considerable lapse of time, the wait for Mr. Lovely ends. Thereafter, there is some conversation with Mr. Lovely where huge sums are discussed with his (Mr. Kulkarni) share being preserved. We need not go into the conversation that Mr. Kulkarni had with Mr. Lovely for reason that Mr. Lovely has since passed away and is not a noticee in the suo motu contempt proceedings. 211. From a perusal of the entire recorded conversation of 8th May, 2007 we are left the impression that and Mr. Sri Bhagwan Sharma was not the main actor and was in fact waiting for the arrival of Mr. Lovely (since deceased). While reference to the BMW case and Mr. Nanda appear in the conversation that he had with Mr. Kulkarni, on the basis of the conversation taken as a whole, the role of Mr. Sri Bhagwan Sharma at best could be described as a facilitator, while the main emissary of Mr. Anand was Mr. Lovely and his assignment was to make him wait till Mr. Lovely appeared on the scene. On the basis of the conversation taken as a whole, it is difficult t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and guilty of criminal contempt. We propose to deal with each such category of material. Familiarity between Mr. Anand and Mr. Kulkarni: 215. The second and third sting operations make it explicit that Mr. Kulkarni had easy access to Mr. Anand. This, by itself, is extremely odd considering that Mr. Kulkarni is the prime witness and the star witness for the prosecution and Mr. Anand is the lawyer for the accused in that very case. Mr. Anand and Mr. Kulkarni meet in the VIP lounge of the airport; Mr. Kulkarni says that he will come to his house, but Mr. Anand invites Mr. Kulkarni to his farm ' the conversation being: Mr. Kulkarni: Jab bhi mereko zaroorat padegi main ghar pe aa jaunga, mujhe pata hai ' (Whenever it is necessary, I will come to your house). Mr. Anand: Chalo let me come back tomorrow evening, you come and meet me in the night ' in the farm ' don't meet me outside ' Mr. Kulkarni: Nahi aaj jaroori tha isliye main mila ' nahi to main ' I avoid it. (Today it was necessary that is why I met you). Mr. Anand: Nahi farm pe milna. (Come to the farm). 216. Then again the possibility of a meeting in Mr. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o. (He told me that he will give two-and'a-half crore. You advise me). Mr. Anand: Hain' Mr. Kulkarni: Dhai crore. Mr. Anand: Tu paanch crore maang le. (You ask for five crore). Mr. Kulkarni: Mein paanch crore maang leta hoo. (I will ask for five crore). Mr. Anand: Tere ko cross-examine maine zaroor karna hai. (I will definitely cross-examine you). 220. Then there is the admonition by Mr. Anand to Mr. Kulkarni not to be unreasonable: Mr. Anand: I'm out of touch ' I'm not in trial ' I'm in High Court so I don't know ' anyhow ' what statement you are supposed to make ' we will decide about it. First of all, meet the bugger and talk to him. And be reasonable. Don't be unreasonable like what you told me that day. Don't be silly. Mr. Kulkarni: Kitna mangoo' (How much should I ask for)' 221. There is also a financial benefit that Mr. Kulkarni may get in connection with the petition challenging the summons issued to Mr. Kulkarni under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. The conversation in this regard is as follows: Mr. Kulkarni: Phir mere khaya....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No, not at all. Until you or Mr. Khan advise me, how can I take the summons'). Mr. Anand: How did Ramesh Gupta inform him that you have taken the summons' Mr. Kulkarni: Ab yahi baat to yahi hai na ' maine summon nahi liya hai ' aap pata kar lo ' maine summon nahi liya hai ' jab vahan Bombay main jake ' unhone phir vahin panga chaloo kar diya na. (I have not taken the summon. You may find out). 225. There is a discussion about the effect of the petition challenging the summons issued to Mr. Kulkarni under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. Mr. Kulkarni: Phir mere khayaal se 311 udega nahi na, blood sample ka udega' (Then I think [the petition under Section 311 of the Cr. P.C.] will not be dismissed. What about the blood sample)' Mr. Anand: Hain' Mr. Kulkarni: Kyon udaye ' jab tumhare paas paise bante hai to mein kyon udayoo' (Why should it be dismissed' When you can make money [on it] then why should I get it dismissed)' 226. There is talk about what statement Mr. Kulkarni should make: Mr. Anand: I'm out of touch ' I'm not in trial ' I'm in High Court....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....39;. Acha Khan ki to ghar ki baat hai. (Let them do [what they want]. I have told [you] what I was told to me. [The next sentence is colloquial and therefore difficult to translate, but it conveys that Mr. Khan is a part of the family]. Mr. Kulkarni: Haan vo to Khan sahab ke apne ghar ki baat hai. (Yes, Mr. Khan is a part of the family). Mr. Anand: Yeh to tum usko keh nahi sakte ho ki tumhe paise mil rahe hain. (You cannot [should not'] tell him [Mr. Khan] that you are getting paid). 233. Mr. Kulkarni took advice from Mr. Khan about receiving the Court summons and this is within the knowledge of Mr. Anand, as is clear from the following conversation: Mr. Kulkarni: Bus baat hi kuch nahi.... Patiala House Court main jakar meine de diya ' Khan sahab ne vo din mereko summon lene ke liye mana kar diya ' ab theek hai vo ' vo to obviously hona hi tha ' ab mereko message pahuchana tha ' vo pahuch gaya. (That day Mr. Khan asked me not to accept the summons. I had to convey a message and that has been conveyed). Mr. Anand: Toh liya kya summon. (So did you take the summons') Mr. Kulkarni:....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us to comment on the conduct of Mr. Kulkarni, nor would it be proper, but there can be absolutely no doubt that Mr. Khan and Mr. Anand were, somehow or the other, more than 'mixed up' in the BMW case. 237. It is also important to note that the sting operation is the only material presently available and it discloses the fact that the dramatis personae had been in touch earlier also ' the sting operations were clearly not their first meetings. That being so, we will never know what transpired between them prior to the sting operations, but it was certainly something not very pleasant. 238. We are left without a shadow of doubt in our mind, on the basis of the material before us, in more features than one, that Mr. Anand was a key player in interfering or at least tending to interfere in the due course of a judicial proceeding and interfering or obstructing or at least tending to interfere or obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner. We are also left with no doubt in our mind that the unshakeable truth is that Mr. Anand is guilty of criminal contempt of Court. Punishment: 239. What then is the sentence or punishment to be meted out to the con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enting his case, he was found guilty of criminal contempt and substantially interfering with the administration of justice. In that case, the contemnor had refunded Rs. 4,00,000/- as directed by the Bar Council and a plea was made to bring a quietus to the matter. This submission was rejected by the Bench holding: To our mind, it is essential that aberration committed by those who are integral part of the administration of justice are sternly and firmly dealt with. Magnanimity and latitude should be available to those who are not knowledgeable or conversant with the system or commit the offence unwittingly or innocently. We may also observe that throughout these prolonged proceedings, despite several opportunities being available, there has not even been expression of any slightest remorse or regret on the part of respondent- contemnor and he continues to maintain his high ground.' A fine of Rs. 2,000/- was imposed on the contemnor. Further, in exercise of powers conferred by Article 215 of the Constitution of India, he was debarred from appearing in this Court and the Courts subordinate to it for a period of two months while permitting him to disc....