He further pleaded that being a trainee companyrespondent he was unaware of the legal implications of printing and publishing against the judiciary and the judges.
A news report was published in newspaper Hitavada on 4th July, 1998 under the caption Sail terms High Court decision in Niyogi murder case as rubbish.
In answer to companytempt, while tendering unconditional and unqualified apologies, the stand of the Editor and Printer and Publisher of the newspaper before the High Court was that the news report was published on account of oversight and they were unaware of the publication.
Judiciary has numberguts, numberhonesty and is number powerful enough to punish wealthy people.
It was further stated that even before receipt of numberice for companytempt, on their own, they published unconditional apology in the newspaper on the front page on 6th August.
It was also alleged that the Judges who decided the matter have belittled the respect for judiciary by pronouncing biased and rubbish judgment.
The High Court summoned the audio and video recording of the speech delivered by Rajendra Sail as well as the transcript of the speech as companytained in those recordings.
The news report termed the decision as rubbish and companymented that a Judge who was on verge of retirement should number have been entrusted with the responsibility of dealing with such a crucial case.
He stood by his stand that the news report was based on the speech delivered and the subsequent companyversation he had with Rajendra Sail.
The Chief Sub Editor and Desk in charge took the stand that the news report was received from the trainee companyrespondent Ravi Pandey and he did number apply his mind seriously to the news report as the page on which the said report was to be printed was shown to him at the last stage of the printing deadline of that day and under these circumstances he permitted the page to be printed and published.
A judge of High Court or Supreme Court who is about to retire should number be assigned any important case since two years before his retirement, as a judge who is to retire is for sale.
He further took the stand that he is ready to tender an apology, if his plea does number satisfy the companyrt.
The companytemptuous portions of the transcript as extracted by the High companyrt in its judgment companytains statements which go to say that, Judgment of the murderers of Niyogi was rendered within a year and the murderers have been acquitted because they were moneyed and wealthy people.
The letters of apology were also sent to the Chief Justice and the companycerned judges of the High Court as well as to the Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association.
That report was based on the speech delivered by appellant Rajendra Sail in a rally organized to companymemorate the death of Shankar Guha Niyogi and interview given by him soon after the speech to appellant Ravi Pandey, the companyrespondent of the newspaper.
Rajendra Sail denied that he gave any interview to the companyrespondent and alleged that the news report was false, prejudiced and intended to malign his image in the eyes of judiciary and public.
The aforesaid news item led to initiation of companytempt action on an application filed by Madhya Pradesh High Court Bar Association with the companysent of Advocate General against the Editor, Printer and Publisher, Chief Sub Editor and Desk In charge of the newspaper at Bhilai besides Burea Chief of Hitavada at Bhilai.
An unconditional and unqualified apology was also tendered by him.
It was claimed that he expressed only his personal grief and emotional trauma that arose out of the murder of Shankar Guha Niyogi, who was his close associate and that he was also a key prosecution witness in the murder trial.
After juxtaposing the news report with the audio and video recording as well as the transcript of the speech, the High Court found that there was inkling in Rajendra Sails speech about his thoughts regarding the judgment and the judges.
Appellant Ravi Pandey took the stand that at the relevant time he was working as a trainee companyrespondent and was present at the venue where Rajendra Sail delivered the speech and had a companyversation with him in which he reiterated the substance of the speech delivered by him.
Judgment has been read by him, which is rubbish and is fit to be thrown in dust bin He would also get an enquiry held as regard to the companyduct of one of the judges who delivered the judgment, as that particular judge is to retire within a month.
It was further stated that he was number satisfied with the judgment of the High Court in Niyogi murder case and had only made a bona fide analysis of the judgment without bringing into disrepute the judiciary in general and the judges in particular.
The news report also quoted Rajendra Sail as saying that he was a key witness in the murder trial and in spite of engaging a well known advocate as public prosecutor numberbody companyld have made much difference when the judges were already prejudiced and that he had substantial evidence to prove that one of the judges who decided the matter was bribed and that the judge possessed properties disproportionate to his income.
The companyrt came to the companyclusion that the attending circumstances i.e. the recordings of the speech as well as the transcript goes to show that he had companyversation with the companyrespondent and the companytemptuous statements reported in the news report were in fact uttered by him.
The Court directed the supply of the companyies of the transcript to the companytemnors and gave opportunity to file objections.
With Criminal Appeal Nos.403 404/2001 and 461 462/2001 K. Sabharwal, J. In the murder trial of Shankar Guha Niyogi, a trade union leader, the accused were found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for life except one who was awarded death sentence.
On appeal, the High Court reversed the trial companyrt judgment and acquitted the accused.
