A solicitor's letter demanding an apology and damages for defamation does not constitute contempt of court if it does not interfere or tend to interfere with the administration of justice.

( 1 ) THIS is a Rule in contempt. Sri. A. K. Sarkar, Editor, Anandabazar Patrika and Sri Suresh Chandra Bhattacharya, Printer and Publisher, Anandabazar Patrika are the petitioners who obtained this Rule to commit to prison these four persons. (1) Kadha Kanta Pandey, (2) Monoranjan Bhowmick, (3) Ratan Maheswari and (4) S. C. Chowdhuri. The first three opposite parties are representation the Soulmari Ashram and Sri S. N. Choudhuri, the fourth opposite party is their Solicitor on record.

( 2 ) THE main and the only ground for contempt is stated to be a letter written by the Solicitor opposite party S. N. Chaudhari to the petitioner dated 16th August. 1965 in which the Solicitor under instructions from the first three opposite parties and members of the Soulmari Ashram, complained of an item of news made, printed and published by the said Paper which was alleged to be defamatory. The letter of the Solicitor in the penultimate paragraph stated. "if you fail or neglect to furnish the information asked for and comply with the requisition contained in the preceding paragraph and also to publish your unqualified apology in bold types in a prominent place of the Anandabazar Patrika within seven days from receipt thereof, my clients will take it that you refuse to comply with the requisition contained herein, and you are in the premises willing to accept full responsibility therefor, and my clients will proceed further accordingly as they may be advised without any further reference to you. "the damage assessed in that letter is Rupees 5,00,000 for this defamation.

( 3 ) THE contention is that this Solicitor's letter is a contempt of the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistate, Jalpaiguri where a complaint is pending against the two petitioners in this Rule and another Sri Amiya Nath Bose. The complaint pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The Soulmari Ashram represented by Mr. Monoranjan Bhowmik filed this complaint under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code, complaining against the publication on the 3rd November 1964 in the Third Dak Edition of the Daily Issue of the newspaper the Anandabazar Patrika of a particular news item mentioned in paragraph 7 of the annexure to the petition here. It was stated in the petition of complaint that Soulmari Ashram represented by Monoranjan Bhowmick were the aggrieved persons within the meaning of Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In that complaint the complainants asked for cognizance of the case and issue of a process against the accused persons under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code directing them to appear before the Court and stand trial, the accused persons there being the two petitioners here namely the Editor and the Printer of the Ananda Bazar Patrika and another Sri Amiya Nath Bose.

( 4 ) THE main facts therefore lie within a clear and narrow compass. The alleged offending publication was made on the 3rd November 1964. The complaint under Section 500 I P. C. was made on the 29th December 1964. It was on that date, 29th December, 1964 that a process was issued and summons was also issued directing the Editor and Printer to appear on 5-2-65 before the Magistrate. Thereupon OB the 12th April 1965 the present petitioner made an application under Section 205 Cr. P. C. for appearance through lawyers which was refused Against that a proceeding has been taken to this High Court and the hearing of the complaint under Section 500 I. P. C. has been stayed. A reference to that effect is pending in this Court and so far as it appears the date of the reference was the 27th July, 1965. The Solicitor's notice for the Civil suit for damages for defamation was issued on the 16th August, 1965. No reply to the Solicitor's letter of demand was given by the petitioners. Instead of giving any such reply an application was straightaway made on the 20th September 1965, one month after the date of the Solicitor's letter of demand, m