Judgment

B. K. Mukherjea, J. - This appeal has come up before us on special leave granted by this Court on 23-5-1950 and it is directed against a judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated 10-4-1950, by which the learned Judges found the appellant guilty of contempt of Court and sentenced him to serve simple imprisonment for three months.

2. The appellant is the publisher and managing editor of a Telgu weekly known as "Praja Rajyam" which is edited and published at Nellore in the State of Madras. In the issue of the said paper dated 10-2-1949, an article appeared under the caption "Is the Sub-Magistrate. Kovvur corrupt?" The purport of the article was that Surya Narayan Murthi, the stationary Sub-Magistrate of Kovvur, was known to the people of the locality to be a bribe taker and to be in the habit of harassing litigants in various ways. He was said to have a broker through whom negotiations in connection with these corrupt practices were carried on. Saveral specific instances were cited of cases tried by that officer, where it was rumoured that he had either taken bribes or had put the parties to undue harassment, because they were obdurate enough to refuse the demands of his broker. The article, which is a short one, concludes with the following paragraph:

"There are party factions in many villages in Kovvur Taluk. Taking advantage of those parties many wealthy persons make attempt to get the opposite party punished either by giving bribes or making recommendations. To appoint Magistrates who run after parties for a Taluk like this..... is to betray the public. It is tantamount to failure of justice. Will the Collector enquire into the matter and allay the public of their fears?"

3. The attention of the State Government being drawn to this article, an application was filed by the Advocate General of Madras before the High Court on 14-11-1949 under S. 2, Contempt of Courts Act (Act XII [12] of (1926) praying that suitable action might be taken against the appellant as well as three other persons, of whom two were respectively the editor and sub-editor of the paper, while the third was the owner of the press where the paper was printed.

4. On receiving notice, the appellant appeared before the High Court and filed an affidavit taking sole responsibility for the article objected to and asserting that the article was published because of his anxiety to uphold the highest traditions of the judiciary in the land and to create popular confidence in Courts, the duty of which was to dispense justice without fear or favour and without any discrimination of caste, creed or community. It was said that before the article was published, numerous complaints had reached him from various quarters imputing corruption and disreputable conduct to this Magistrate and the only desire of the appellant was to draw the attention of the higher authorities to the state of public opinion in the matter and to invite an enquiry into the truth or otherwise of the allegations which were not asserted as facts but were based only on hearsay.

5. The High Court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that the publication in question did amount to contempt of Court, as it was calculated to lower the prestige and dignity of Courts and bring into disrepute the administration of justice. As the appellant was not prepared to substantiate the allegations which he made and which he admitted to be based on hearsay and did not think it proper even to express any regret for what he had done, the Court sentenced him to simple imprisonment for three months.

6. The other three respondents, through their counsel, tendered unqualified apology to the Court and the learned Judges considered that no further action against them was necessary.

7. The propriety of the decision of the High Court so far as it relates to the appellant has been challenged before us in this appeal and Mr. Sinha, who appeared in support of the same, raised before us a two-fold content