1. The appellant is a politician and social worker. In a Seminar organised by Indian Medical Association on the question of the desirability of the application of the Consumer Protection Act to doctors, the appellant made a speech on 11th December, 1993 at Calcutta. The newspapers of 12th December, 1993 carried the news about the speech said to have been made in the said Seminar by the appellant. Different newspapers carried different versions. Bengali news daily Bartaman published a report of the said speech of the appellant which when translated in English, as quoted in the judgment under appeal, reads as under:

"The Judges do not mete out justice. They deliver the judgments at the Court with an eye towards their self interests. The brief cases full with currency notes find their ways in the Judges house, in exchange, many recorded Criminals, murders and forgers go scot free. Biman Babu, the C.P.M. leader made the comment about Judges. Biman Babu declares that he was making those comments consciously. He would not flinch back if he were made to stand on the dock for this."

2. In case the appellant made the statement as quoted above it was definitely a matter that could not be ignored and deserved an action to be taken. Therefore, the aforesaid publication resulted in initiation of suo motu contempt proceedings against the appellant and two others, namely, the editor and publisher of the newspaper. The contempt case was heard by a full bench of three Judges of the High Court. By the impugned judgment, the apologies of the editor and publisher were accepted. The appellant was held guilty of contempt and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed on him.

3. The appellant in this appeal has challenged the impugned judgment of the High Court. This Court has also issued to the appellant a notice to show cause why the punishment should not be enhanced in case the conviction is upheld.

4. We have perused the record and heard learned counsel for the parties and Mr. Altaf Ahmad, learned Additional Solicitor General who was requested to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae. The appellant before the High Court had disputed the aforesaid version that had been published in Bartaman. According to him it was an incorrect and distorted version of what he had said in the Seminar. The correct version, according to the appellant, was the one that was published in the newspaper Statesman. The appellant in the contempt case had taken the stand that he had not scandalized the judiciary; he had not said what had been imputed to him by Bartaman; it was not incumbent upon him to prove what he had said and that it was for the Court to elicit the truth as to whether the statements on the basis of which the Rule had been issued had been made by him or not. The appellant further stated that for the judiciary which played an important role in the society, he had high regard and he holds the institution of judiciary in high esteem.

5. The High Court did not accept the version of the appellant. It would be appropriate to notice at this stage the approach of the High Court in dealing with the stand of the appellant that the version as published in Bartaman was distorted and incorrect. We, therefore, reproduce hereunder the relevant passage from judgment under appeal:

"We are unable to accept the submission on behalf of the respondent No.1 that the contempt proceedings were liable to be dropped on the basis of his mere assertion that he had not made the statements as reported in the The Bartaman. No doubt it is for the Court to elicit the truth of his assertion but the Court will arrive at a finding on the basis of the material before it. It may be that there is no presumption that a newspaper report is correct but it is equally true that there is no presumption of the falsity of a newspaper report. Thus a newspaper report may be relied on for the purpose of initiating proceedings in contempt but not for proving the contumacious conduct.

In this case, on the one hand, the newspaper report has been supported by the affidavit of the Editor and publisher who have affirmed the correctness of the report. On the other hand, the respondent has affirmed that the reporting was incorrect. It is not the respondent No.1s case that he had made no statement at all regarding the judiciary. His submission has been that the version printed in the Bartamans was incorrect."

6. The impugned judgment also notices that the appellant did not deny having made the comment when called upon to comment on the basis of the Court action as reported in the newspaper Statesman. The portion of the report published in the Statesman to which reference seems to have been made by the High Court reads as under:

"Meanwhile, when asked for comment, Mr. Biman Bose told the Statesman or Monday that his statements were not aimed at the judiciary in general. I had said that some of the Judges were corrupt. I did not mean that all the Judges were engaged in corrupt practices, he said.

When he asked whether he had any evidence to substantiate his statement, Mr. Bose replied in the negative and said that his comment was based on similar allegations made by the common people."

7. For coming to the conclusion that what appeared in Bartaman was correct, the High Court also seems to have been influenced by the fact that no formal denial was issued by the appellant that he has been misquoted at any stage.

8. Having perused the record and heard learned counsel, on the facts of the case, in our opinion, there does not exist sufficient material to come to the conclusion that what appeared in newspaper Bartaman represented the correct version of the speech of the appellant. The standard of proof required in the proceedings of criminal contempt is that of any other criminal proceedings. See S. Abdul Karim vs. M.K. Prakash & others (1976 (1) SCC 975 [LQ/SC/1976/31] ), Mrityunjoy Das & Another vs. Syed Hasibur Rahman and others (2001 (3) SCC 739 [LQ/SC/2001/725] ), Chhotu Ram vs. Urvashi Gulati and others (2001 (7) SCC 530 [LQ/SC/2001/1836] ) and Bijay Kumar Mahanty vs. Jadu @ Ram Chandra Sahoo (2003 (1) SCC 644 [LQ/SC/2002/1319] ).

9. The present case is of two versions, one as published in newspaper Bartaman on the basis of which the appellant has been found guilty of contempt, the other version that appeared in other newspapers. Without a clear finding based on material on record that the version as appeared in the newspaper Bartaman is correct, it is not possible to uphold the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of contempt of Court. The contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal. The charges is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and not on probabilities. In M.R. Parashar & others vs. Dr. Farooq Abdullah and others (1984) (2) SCC 343 [LQ/SC/1984/29] ), while dealing with a contempt matter arising out of a speech made by the Chief Minister, this Court observed that if the Chief Minister had made the statements attributed to him, he was clearly in contempt but noticing that the Chief Minister denied having made those statements and that no record of his speech was cited to prove that the Chief Minister scandalized the courts and assailed the character of Judges, it was held that in face of denial by one and an assertion by the other without more, it is difficult to decide who was right.

10. In Chhotu Rams case (supra) the observations of Lord Denning that have been cited with approval are "where there are two equally consistent possibilities open to the Court, it is not right to hold that the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt". This principle is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Merely on the basis of publication in the newspaper Bartaman which had been seriously controverted, a finding that the appellant made the statement attributed to him and thus committed contempt of court could not have been returned.

11. Further, in this Court also, the appellant has filed an affidavit wherein while asserting that it has always been father from his mind to denigrate the judiciary as a whole or judiciary as an institution, he has explained that in the course of his speech, reference was made by him to unfortunate features of every profession and almost every walk of life of certain elements, though in a minority, which by their activities and conduct, have effected the credibility and the reputation of the particular profession on Institution and referred to various complaints made against behaviour of some doctors, teachers, lawyers, other professions and public servants and in passing he also referred to the unfortunate feeling in some sections of the people, about the absence of rectitude on the part of some members of the Judiciary. He says that such a reference was made in good faith and by way of an example of the unfortunate development in the society but not to criticise or denigrate the judiciary as such. In the affidavit, reference has also been made to high judicial functionaries who had voiced similar concerns. He has categorically stated having never denigrated the Institution of judiciary nor the judicial system as such and has further stated that the removal of unfortunate impression of the members of the public in respect of section of the judiciary, would strengthen the peoples faith to the judicial process.

12. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court holding the appellant guilty of contempt and so also the consequent sentence of fine imposed on him. The fine stated to have been deposited by the appellant, shall be refunded to him.

13. Before concluding we place on record our sincere gratitude to Shri Altaf Ahmed, learned Additional Solicitor General, who as an amicus curiae has very ably assisted this Court. The appeal is allowed in above terms.