# D. P. MISHRA v. KAMAL NARAIN SHARMA & ORS

- **Citation:** [1971] 3 S.C.R. 257
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1970-12-18
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1738 of 1969
- **Bench:** J. C. Shah, K. s. HEGDE, A. N. Gr6Ver
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/d-p-mishra-v-kamal-narain-sharma-ors-5174
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Representation of t/je People Act, 1951, s. 98-Proceedings for 'naming'
person responsible for corrupt practice-Finding given by High CourtCircumstances in which Supreme Court would. reconsider.
Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, s. ?-Person's name printed
as Pditor in paper and recorded with Registrar-If responsible for everything printed in paper-Presumption as to--Jf can be rebutted.
At the time of dismissing an appeal by the appellant against the finding
by the High Court that the appellant. was guilty of a corrupt practice
under s. 123(4) of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951, the
Supreme Court directed that S an editor, publisher and printer of a daily
newspaper, Mahakoshal which published the. offending material "relevant
to the personal character or conduct ot one of the candidates, should be
given a notice to show cause why he should not be named under s. 98.
At the hearing pursuant to the notice issued by the High Court, S
admitted that he was the registered printer, publisher and editor of the
newspaper in the record of the Press Register at the relevant time and that
the offending material was published-1n the Mahakoshal; but he claimed
that it was so printed without his knowledge, that he had left the entire
management of the newspaper
with T, and did not himself come to
learn about the publication until after the election petition was filed.
After hearing further evidence, the High Court accepted the plea set up
by s.
In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of two interveners who had undertaken the defence of the appeal that S was liable
to be named under s. 98, (i) in view of the provisions of section 7 of
the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, and the fact that S was
the registered printer, publisher and editor of the newspaper; (ii) because
in certain proceedings taken in the High Court for cummitting the editor
of the same newspaper for contempt of court for publishing certain
scurrilous matte: concernin~ a Civil Judge in 1962. S had admjtted his
responsibility for the publication and tendered an apology; (iii) because
on October 24, 1963, the first respondent had addressed a letter to S
inviting his attention to the publication of ti)~ offending matter in. AprilMay, 1963, which was the subject matter of the election petition, requiring him to disclose the identity of the writer within three days and stating that otherwise S would be, assumed to be the author of the publication;
S had no reply to the said letter.
HELD : The order passed by the High Qlurt must be confirmed.
(i) Section 7 raises a presumption that a person whose name is printed
in a copy of the newspaper is the editor of every portion of that issue.
However, this presumption may be rebutted bv evidence. In a charge
under s. 123 ( 4) of the Representation of the People Act, the presumption under s. 7 would come with ~ter or less force, according to the
circumstances, to tho aid of a P"TM'" claiming ··tlranhe editor-was res3-L807S"p.Cl;71
258
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 3 S.C.R.
ponsible for the publication and that the publlcation was to the knowledge
A
of the editor. The High Court had accepted the testimony of S and T
to the effect that T was in sole management of the newspaper at the relevant time and no reason was shown why this Court should not agree with
~
this conclusion .. Granting that there was close association between the
appellant and_ S, and even granting that Mahakoshal was exclusively
carrying on propaganda on behalf of the appellant, unless there
was
evidence to prove the S had either authorised the publication of the offendB
ing matter, or had undertaken to be responsible for all. the publications
made in the Mahakoshal, no inference that the offending publications
were made to the knowl"iJge and with the consent of S may be raised.
[262 E-G; 264 EJ
A proceeding f<>r naming a person who is found responsible for publication of offendLng matter is in the nature of a quasi-criminal proceedi

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
11
257
D. P. MISHRA
v.
KAMAL NARAIN SHARMA & ORS.
December 18, 1970
[J. C. SHAH, C.J., K. s. HEGDE AND A. N. GR6VER, JJ.]
Representation of t/je People Act, 1951, s. 98-Proceedings for 'naming'
person responsible for corrupt practice-Finding given by High CourtCircumstances in which Supreme Court would. reconsider.
Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, s. ?-Person's name printed
as Pditor in paper and recorded with Registrar-If responsible for everything printed in paper-Presumption as to--Jf can be rebutted.
At the time of dismissing an appeal by the appellant against the finding
by the High Court that the appellant. was guilty of a corrupt practice
under s. 123(4) of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951, the
Supreme Court directed that S an editor, publisher and printer of a daily
newspaper, Mahakoshal which published the. offending material "relevant
to the personal character or conduct ot one of the candidates, should be
given a notice to show cause why he should not be named under s. 98.
At the hearing pursuant to the notice issued by the High Court, S
admitted that he was the registered printer, publisher and editor of the
newspaper in the record of the Press Register at the relevant time and that
the offending material was published-1n the Mahakoshal; but he claimed
that it was so printed without his knowledge, that he had left the entire
management of the newspaper
with T, and did not himself come to
learn about the publication until after the election petition was filed.
After hearing further evidence, the High Court accepted the plea set up
by s.
In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of two interveners who had undertaken the defence of the appeal that S was liable
to be named under s. 98, (i) in view of the provisions of section 7 of
the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, and the fact that S was
the registered printer, publisher and editor of the newspaper; (ii) because
in certain proceedings taken in the High Court for cummitting the editor
of the same newspaper for contempt of court for publishing certain
scurrilous matte: concernin~ a Civil Judge in 1962. S had admjtted his
responsibility for the publication and tendered an apology; (iii) because
on October 24, 1963, the first respondent had addressed a letter to S
inviting his attention to the publication of ti)~ offending matter in. AprilMay, 1963, which was the subject matter of the election petition, requiring him to disclose the identity of the writer within three days and stating that otherwise S would be, assumed to be the author of the publication;
S had no reply to the said letter.
HELD : The order passed by the High Qlurt must be confirmed.
(i) Section 7 raises a presumption that a person whose name is printed
in a copy of the newspaper is the editor of every portion of that issue.
However, this presumption may be rebutted bv evidence. In a charge
under s. 123 ( 4) of the Representation of the People Act, the presumption under s. 7 would come with ~ter or less force, according to the
circumstances, to tho aid of a P"TM'" claiming ··tlranhe editor-was res3-L807S"p.Cl;71
258
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 3 S.C.R.
ponsible for the publication and that the publlcation was to the knowledge
A
of the editor. The High Court had accepted the testimony of S and T
to the effect that T was in sole management of the newspaper at the relevant time and no reason was shown why this Court should not agree with
~
this conclusion .. Granting that there was close association between the
appellant and_ S, and even granting that Mahakoshal was exclusively
carrying on propaganda on behalf of the appellant, unless there
was
evidence to prove the S had either authorised the publication of the offendB
ing matter, or had undertaken to be responsible for all. the publications
made in the Mahakoshal, no inference that the offending publications
were made to the knowl"iJge and with the consent of S may be raised.
[262 E-G; 264 EJ
A proceeding f<>r naming a person who is found responsible for publication of offendLng matter is in the nature of a quasi-criminal proceeding,
In an appeal ~gainst the order of the High Court qolding on appreciation
of evidence that a person charged before the High Court is not proved
to be guilty of a corrupt practice, this Court does not normally proceed
to reappraise the evidence, unless the High .Court has misconceived the
evidence <>r the conclusion is perverse or so basically
faulty that interference by this Court is attracted, of the procedure adopted by the Court
has resulted in mis-carriage of justice or for similar reasons. [261 AJ
Amar Na/h v. Lachman Singh & Ors. C.A. No. 1717 of 1968 docided
on Dec. 23, 1968; Jagdev Singh v. Pratap Singh,
A.LR. 1965 S.C. 183;
Dr. M. Chenna Reddy v. V. Ramchandra Rao and Anr., C.A. No. 1149
of 1968 decided on Dec. 17, 1968 ari Meghraj Patadia v. R. K. Bir/a
and Ors. [1971J 2 S.C.R. 118; referred to.
(ii) The position taken by S in the contempt proceedings was not
inconsistent with the case set up by him in these proceedings.
Although
responsibility for publication was accepted by him, he had clearly stated
that the publication of news-item from the correspondents were attended
to by the sub-editors and that he generally laid down the policy of the
newspaper and gave general directions.
He admitted his responsibility
because he was the Chief Editor and not because he personally had, with
knowledge published the article
which
constituted
contempt of Court.
[265 DJ
(iii) If the story of S that he came to know of the offending publications for the first time after the petition was filed is· accepted, failure to
repudiate the publications after the election petition was filed will not
lead to an inference against S that he was responsible 'for the publications.
[266 CJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :
Civil Appeal No. 1738
of 1969.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
March 12, 1969 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in First
Appeal No. 49 of 1967.
E. C. Agarwal, for the appellant.
M. C. Setalvad, S. V. Gupte, K. A. Chitale, U. N. Bachawat,
A. K. Verma, Sreenivasa Rao and!. 8. Dadachanji, for Mr. S. c.
Shukla.
-
M. C. Chaf(la, R. S. Dabir, Rameshwar Nath and Swaran;it·
Sodhi, for respondents Nos. 3 and 4.
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
D
D. P. MISHRA V. K. N. SHARMA (Shah, C.J.)
259
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Shah, C.J. In compliance with our order dated March 1?,
1970 the High Court issued a notice to Shukla. Shukla sublllltted his reply contending, inter a/ia, that he did not publish or
cause to be published the offending statements in the l!.ewspaper
Nlahakoshal as alleged by Sharma. In paragraph 1 (ii) he submitted that :
"He learnt about their publication only after and
during the pendency of the election petition for declaration of the election of Shri D. P. Mishra as void.
The person in sole charge of the newspaper was Shri
Vishnudatta Mishra 'Tarangi' yihose name has
been
printed as the Editor.
The declaration under Rule 8,
Form VI prescribed under the Press and Registration
of Books Act (No. XXV of 1867) for the year 1963
shows that the said Shri Vishnudatta Mishra 'Tarangi'
and not the opposite party (Shukla) was the editor at
the material time.
.
.
.
.
.
.
At the
time of his appointment the said Shri Vishnudatta
Mishra 'Tarangi' had insisted that there would be no
interference by the opposite party (Shukla) in the conduct of the newspaper."
Several witnesses were examined before the High Court in
E
support of the case that
Shukla was instrumental in publishing and distributing the offending statements Annexures I, II &
Ill in the daily newspaper Mahakoshal of which Shukla was the
editor, printer and publisher.
Some witnesses who had been
previously examined were recalled for examination. Shukla and
F
Tarangi were also examined at the hearing.
At the hearing of the appeal and in the
proceedings for
naming Shula, Sharma the petitioner who instituted. the election
•
petition took no interest.
But two persons who were permitted
to intervene in the proceeding took upon themselves the defence
of the appeal and also to prosecute the proceeding after it stood
remanded to the High Court.
G
H
The interveners submitted that Shukla had published
the
offending maner contained in
Annexures
I, II & III.
They
said thar-( l) D. P. Mishra prepared the offending matter, read
it over to Shukla and hantled it over to hirn for publication and
the same was published in the Mahakoshal and was widely distributed: (2) the copies of the newspaper containing the offending matter were personallv distributed bv Shukla;
and
(3)
Shukla was the printer, pubJiqher and editor of the newspaper
and was the owner of the Printing Press in which the copies
-
260
SUPREME COURT llEPORTS
(1971] 3 s.c.R.
of the newspaper were printed, that· he was attending to !hi:
publication of the newspaper and copies of the newspaper were
supplied to him and that "Tarangi had nothing whatever to do
with the publication of the newspaper Mahakoshal" at the relevant time.
The High Court on a review of the
evidence was of the
opinion that the case under the first and the second heads in
support of the plea of the interveners was
not proved.
The
High Court also held that even though the name of Shukla was
printed in the newspaper Mahakoshal as the Chief Editor and
that fact was printed in the report of the Press-Registrar published for the information of the Government showing that
Shukla was between the years 1962
and
1965,
the
publisher, printer and editor of Mabakoshal, that Shukla had
in June 1962 appointed Tarangi
as
editor of Mahakoshal,
that Tarangi was
in exclusive charge of the publication;
that Shukla was not at the relevant time when the offending
matter was published attending to the publication of Mahakoshal;
that Shukla had no knowledge of the publication of the offending matter till it was brought to his notice in the course of the
election petition;
that Shukla was not proved to be the ·agent
of Mishra and that even if it be held that he was the agent of
Mishra, it was not proved that Mishra had given his consent
to the publication of the offending matter in the Mahakoshal.
Section 123 ( 4) of the Represe.ntation of the People Act,
1951, provides:
"The publication by a candidate or his agent or
by any other person, of any statement of fact which.
is false, and which he either believes to be false or does
not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate, or in relation to the
candidature, or withdrawal, or retirement from contest,
of any .candidate, being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that. candidate's
election",
is a corrupt practice.
Section 99 ( 1) requires the Tribunal in
making an order under s. 98 to record the names of all persons,
if any, who are proved at the trial to have been guilty of any
corrupt practice and the nature of that practice. But a person
not a party to the petition cannot be named in the order, unless
he has . been given notice to appear before the Tribunal and to ·
show cause why he should not be so named, and if he appears
in pursuance of the notice, he has been given an opportunity of
cross-examining any witness who has already· been examined by
the Tribunal and has given evidence against him, of calling evidence in his defence and of b~ing heard.
B
c
9
E
F
\-
H
A
c
D
E
Ii'
G
H
D. P. MISHRA v. K. N. SHARMA (Shah, C.J.)
261
A proceeding for naming a person who is found responsib~t!
for publication of offending matter is in the nature of a q~s1criminal proceeding. In an appeal against the order of the High
Court holding on appreciation of evidence that a person charged
before the High Court is not proved to be guilty 9f a corrupt
practice, this Court does not normally proceed to reappraise the
evidence, unless the High Court has misconceived the evidence or
the conclusion is perverse or, so basically faulty that interference
by this Court is attracted or the procedure adoeted by the Court
has resulted in miscarriage of justice or for simitar reasons.
See
Amar Nath v.
Lacliman Singh & Ors( 1);
Jagd~v Singh
v.
Pratap Singh('); Dr. M. Chenf!Q Reddy v. V. Ramchandra Rao
and Anr.('); and Meghraj Patodia v. R. K. Bir/a and Ors.(').
Mr. Chagla on behalf of the interveners contended that the
conclusion of the High Court was perverse because
the High
Court had ignored important circumstances and evidence bearing on the question in dispute, and bad reached a conclusion
wholly inconsistent with normal probabilities.
In dealing with
this contention we may ·first eliminate matters in respect ·Of which
there is no serious controversy.
Annexures. I, II & Ill which
constitute the offending matter were published in the newspaper
Mahakoshal during the course of the election campaign of D. P.
Mishra.
The newspaper Mahakoshal was published from Raipur, and Shukla was registered as the printer, publisher and editor in the record of the Press Registrar. The issue)> dated April
12, April 26 and May 4, 1963, were printed in the Mahakoshal
Printing Press and were published atid distributed. The matte;r
published in those ;~sues was in relation to the personal character
and conduct of Sharma and in relation to his candidature. It
was also a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of Sharma's election.
·
. Shukla a~mitted t~at th~ offending matter was published liut
claimed that 1t was printed in the Mahakoshal without his knowledge.
He claimed that he had left Jhe entire management of
the newspaper with Tarangi and that he did not come to learn
about the publication till the election petition was filed.
. The Hi~h Court accepted the plea set up by Shukla that ·he
did not know about the publication of the ofl'ending matter at
or about the time when· it was published. In support of the contention that Shukla was liable to be named. Mr. Chai!la ·retied
upon s. 7,,of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 186'7, upon
(ll C.A. No. 1717 of 1968 dedded on Dec. 23, 1968
(2) A.l.R. 196> S.C. 183
(3) C.A. No. 1149of1968 decided on Dec. 17: 1968
(4) [1971]2S.i:'·R.118
262
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 3 S.C.R.
certain proceedings in contempt taken before the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh in which Shukla had admitted his responsibility in regard to the publication made some time in June 1963
and also upon the service of a notice UP.On Shukla by Sharma
who filed the election
petition requiring Shukla
to disclose
certain facts regarding the publication, upon the evidence that
Shukla was closely associated with Mishra in carrying on the
election campaign, and that the daily Mahakoshal carried on
propaganda exclusively on behalf of Mishra and not of any other
candidate. Counsel submitted that Shukla's denial could not be
accepted as there was dear evidence that copies of the daily
Mahakoshal were supplied at his residence at all relevant times
a'.lld it is unlikely that he did not read them.
Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867,
insofar as it is relevant, provides :
A
c
"In any 'legal proceeding whatever, . . .. . . the
production of . . . . , in the case of the editor, a
copy of the newspaper containing his. name printed on
D
it as that of the editor shall ·be held (unless the contrary be proved) to be sufficient evidence, as against the
person whose name shall be . . . . printed on such
newspaper, . . . . that the said person was . . .
the editor of every portion of that issue of the newspaper of which a copy is produced."
E
Section 7 raises a presumption that a person whose n?me is printed in a copy of the newspaper is the editor of every portion of
that issue.
The pr.esumption may be rebutted by evidence.
In
the copies of Mahakoshal dat.ed April 12, April 26, and May 4
1963, it was printed that Shukla was the Chief Editor. Shukla
was also described as the pr~nter and publisher of the newspaper.
The presumption under s. 7 of the Press and Registrat\on of
Books Act, undoubtedly arises, but in a charge under s. 123 ( 4)
of the Repr.esentation of. the People Act the presumption under
s. 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, would
come with greater or less force, according to the circumstances
to the aid of a person claiming that the editor was responsible
for the publication and that th~ publication was to t!Je knowledge
of editor.
Tarangi in hi~· evidence has stated that he was working bet·
ween June 1962 to January 1964 as editor of Mahakoshal and
that he was in so!.e incharge of the newspaper inc!uding its
management, and that he was solely responsible for editing, print·
ing and publishing the newspaper, and that he had made a special
condition when accepting his appointment as
editor that he
F
G
}!
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
D. P. MISHRA v. K. N. SHARMA (Shah, C.J.)
263
would be in sok charge of managing and editing tile newspaper.
He said that Shukla never visited the office of Mahakoshal during
the period of his management. that he-Tarangi-wrote Annexures I, II & Ill and got them printed and published, that he had
written them by himself on information which he received, and
not at the instance of any other person, that he had not obtained
the consent of Shukla before writing or publishing the offending
matter, and that when he heard the matter contained in those
articles he thought that it had news value and he printed and
published it.
He a:so stated that Shukla was not informed of
the offending matter.
Tarangi had printed on March 1, 1963, a statement in the
daily issue of Mahakoshal that he was the editor. That is clear
from Annexure A. It was urged by Chagla that Shukla, to conceal his· activities in the course of the elections which it was expected would take place in the near future made a mere appearance of printing the name of Tarangi as editor, while in fact he
remained the editor and in charge of management of the Mahakoshal.
But it is clear from the issues of the Mahakoshal daily
dated July 11, July 16, July 30, July 31, September 24, October
12 and October 18. 1962, that on the title page Tarangi was
shown as the editor of the newspaper.
The story that Tarangi
was, placed in charge of the newspaper Mahakoshal between June
1962 and January 1964 is amply supported by copies of the
Mahakoshal produced in the Court. It is not in dispute that in
the publication of the newspaper Mahakoshal which contained the
offending Annexures L II & III it was published that Tarangi
was the editor.
Shukla stated in hise evidence that he had ieft Tarangi in
sole management of the newspaper, that during the months of
April and May 1963 he visitd his house at Raipur only once,
and that he had no occasion to read the previous issues of the
Mahakoshal. Shukla said that he was moving about from place
to place during that period. The High Court has accepted that
testimony and we see no reason to disagree with the sam~. Annexure A on which reliance is placed was made pursuant to s. 190
(b) of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867.
There
was no attempt to prove that the return submitted before the
Press Registrar differed from the return published under s. 190
(b). Section 19K(c) makes it an offence for the publisher of
any newspaper to publish in pursuance of cl. (b) of
s. 190
any particulars relating to the newspaper which he has reason
to believe to be false. Mr. Chagla contended that Shukla should
have taken steps to produce before the High Court the original
return or at any rate a copy of the return filed before the Press
Registrar. We do not think that in the circumstances of the case
264
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[197 l p s.c.R.
any such obligation iay upon Shukla. If it was the case of the
interveners that the statement in Annexure A was not consistent
with the return made to he Press Regisrar they could have summoned the Press Registrar or a member of his Office with the
original return.
But that was not done.
It is true that in the
annual report published by the Press Registrar for the use of the
Central Government for the years 1963, 1964 and 1965 Shukla
alone is shown as the editor of Mahak6shal and the name of
Tarangi is not al all mentioned.
But the annual report of the
Press Registrar which contains hundreds of entries is secondary
evidence of the contents of the return.
There is no reason why,
when the interveners have made no atempt to have the original return produved, we should accept the annual report as probative of
the fact that Tarangi's name was not mentioned in the return
submited to the Press Registrar.
The annual reprot is only for
the infomiation of the Government and a mere summary in the
annual report, to which the Legislature has not attached any
importance and which is not made under any statutory provision,
cannot be regarded as displacing the effect of a statutory provision
made under s. l 9D(b) of the Press and Registration of Books
Act, 1867.
Granting that there was close association between Mishra and
Shuk.Ja and even granti:ng that Mahakoshal was exclusively carrying
on propaganda Oh behalf of Mishra, unless there is evidence to
prove that Shukla had either authorised the publicatic'l of the
offending matter, or had undertaken to be responsible for all
the publications made in the Mahakoshal, no inferenre that the
offending publications were made to the
knowledge and with
the consent of Shukla mlly be raised.
Strong reliance was placed by Mr. Chagla upon two circum'
stances : ( i) that in certain proceedings tak"':D .in the High Court
for €Ommitting the editor of Mahakoshal for contempt of court
for publishing in June 1962 certain securrilous matter concerning
a Civil Judge. Shukla admitted his responsibility for the publication and tendered apology; and (ii) that Shukla did not ~end
any reply to the notice served by Sharma, and published no repudiation.
The circumstances in which the proceeding for commitment
for contempt .of court was started may first be set out. On June
16, 1963, a news-item defamatory of one R. P. Awasthy, Civil
Judge, was published in Mabakoshal 1. The District & Sessions
Judge, Bi!aspur, submitted the papers relating to the publication, to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh with a report that
one Dr. Saraf Ba!oda a correspondent of the newspaper was responsible for the publication, and recommended that proceeding
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
'B
c
D
E
F
G
H
D. p, :MISHRA v. K. N, SHARMA (Shah, CJ.)
265
be started for committing for contempt Saraf
an~ the
~di\Qr,
printer and publisher of the newspaper.
A notice was issued
to the editor, printer and publisher of Mahakoshal. Shukla appeared before the High Court., and admitted that he was the Chief
Editor of the paper, but he stated that the day to day. work was
done by the Sub-Editors, that he used to lay down the principle
and policy of the paper and also gave general directions, that
the news item received from correspondents from various places
was scrutinised by the Sub-editors and the sub-editors that on
June 16, 1963 they did not understand the implications of the
offending news-item, and published it, and that when it came
to his (Shtiklas) notice he immediately published a contradiction _anc:l expressed his regret 1re said that beb1g
the Chief
Edi!or_he accepted his responsibility.
He submitted that since
amends had been made 5oon after the facts came to his notice,
his apol~to the "concerned officer and assuring him that. no
item will ~ published from the correspondent" be accepted. In
view o·? this apology no action was taken. against him by the
High Court.
The statement filed by Shukla is not inconsistent
with the case set up by him in this proo.:eding.
Responsi1'ility
for publication was accepted by him but he had clearly stated
that the publication of news-items from the correspondents were
attended to by \he Sub-editors, and that he generally laid down
the policy of the newspaper and gave general directions.
He
admitted his responsibility because he was the Chief Editor, and
not because he personally had with knowledge
published
the
article which constituted contempt of Court.
On October 24, 1963, Sharma addressed a letter to Shukla
~ printer, publishr.r and editor of Mahakoshal inviting his attention to the three Annexures I, II and III dated April 12, April
26 and May 4, '1963 and calling upon Sh~kla to "disC!ose the
full identity of the writer within three days 1of his receiving the
letter." He intimated that in case Shukla failed to comply with
the request, he would assume that Shukla was thei author of the
publications, a.nd would take suitable legal action.
No . reply
was ~ent to t~1s letter. Nor did Shukla publish any repudiation
that 1! was ~1tho.ut hi.s knowledg.~ that the matter was published.
Shukla has m his evidence stated that after receiving the Jetter
he consulted his lawyer, and he was "advised that replv was not
necessary" and it "was not proper to send a reply".
He stated
that he remembered that his counsel advised him that since he
was "involved in the petition" he should not act on the Jetter~
The~e matters were elicited in cross-.~xamination by counsel for
the mterveners. Mr. Chagla submitted that the testimony of
Shukla in this beh~lf may not. be accepkid, be~ause the Iawyj)r
h~d not been exammed as a witness and even his name was not
disclosed.
But the matter was not probed further by the cross
266
SUPRll~E COURT REPORTS
[1971] 3 S.C.R.
examiner nor any question asked which would suggest that any
doubt was sought . to be thrown on the testimony of Shukla that
he· acted on the advise given by his Jawer.
It is true that no
repudiation of Annexture I, II & III was published
in
the
Mahakoshal, even after the Jetter was received from Sharma.
But
it must be remembered that in June 1963 an election p.etition
was filed for setting aside the electiQil of· Mishra and in para·
graph 5 it was asserted that Annexures I, II & III were publi;hed in the newspaper Mahakoshal of which Shukla was the prill't·
er, publisher and editor. It was further asserted that Shukla was
the agent of Mishra.
If the story of Shukla that till October
1962 he was not aware of the offending
publications and he
came to know of the publications for the first time be accepted,
failure to repudiate th.e publications after the election petition
was filed will not, in our judgment, lead to an inference against
Shukla that he wa, responsible for the publications.
We have carefully considered the evidence anct the circum·
stances, and we do hot think :hat a case is made out justifying
us in taking a_ view different from the view of the High Court.
The proceeding before us is quasi-criminal in character, and this
Court will not normally disagree with the view of the High Court,
where the High Court h~s reached, on appreciation of evidence,
the conclusion that the corru·pt practice charged against a person
is not proved.
This Court has jurisdiction in appropriate cases
to disagree with the conclus10n reached by the High Court, but
the power to interfere is sparingly exercised. It is not exercis.ed
merely because this Court may take on the evidenc~ a different
view. An !J.ppellate Court is reluctant to disregard the conclusion
on matters of appreciation of evidence ·by the Court which had
occasion to watch the demeanour of the witnesses examined before
it, and to substitute its own view thereon. Where the proceeding
tried by the Court of First Instance is of a quasi-crimilrnl nature,
~he reluctance of the appellate court is greater.
The question
is not one of power or authority of the appellate court, but of
the respect and consideration due to the Court of First Instance,
and of the limit inherent in the exercise of the app.el!ate func·
tions. .
·
The order passed by the High Court is confirmed.
Having
regard to the circumstances of the case, there will be no order
as to costs of the proceeding against Shukla. The appeal filed by
Mishra will be dismissed.
Since the original applicant Sharma
did not appear in this Court, there will be no order as to costs
in the appeal.
R.K.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.
A
B
c
D·
E
F
G
H