JUDGMENT

Jenkins, C.J. - On the 12th of May 1913 Mr. Lionel Hewitt Colson, Special Superintendent, Intelligence Branch, Criminal Investigation Department, Indian Police Service, filed a petition of complaint in the Court of the Additional Magistrate at Barisal, alleging that one Girindra Mohan Das and 43 others had been guilty of offences u/s 121A of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate, Mr. Nelson, examined the complainant on oath, recorded his deposition, and directed certain warrants to issue.

2. On the 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 24th, 26th and 30th days of May, articles, it is said, containing comments on the criminal proceeding initiated by this complaint, described as the Barisal Conspiracy Case, were published in a newspaper called the Amrita Bazar Patrika.

3. The Government of Bengal, having been advised that the publication of these articles, and each of them, and in particular the leading article of the 22nd May, 1913, constituted serious contempt of Court, the Advocate-General, on the 6th of June, made an application to a Divisional Bench with a view to proceedings being taken against two persons on the ground that one of them was the editor and manager, and the other the printer and publisher of the Amrita Bazar Patrika newspaper.

4. The Advocate-General purported to apply on behalf of an officer of the Government of Bengal, whom he described as the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs and ex officio Public Prosecutor, Bengal.

5. It appeared to the Division Bench that there might be a difficulty as to an application by the officer so described, and on this being brought to his notice, the Advocate-General stated to the Court that he was moving on behalf of His Excellency the Governor of Bengal in Council. Leave was accordingly given to the Advocate-General to move on behalf of the Governor of Bengal in Council and not of the officer described as Legal Remembrancer. An order was accordingly drawn up in the following terms: "The Advocate-General of Bengal stating that he moves on behalf of His Excellency the Governor of Bengal in Council and at the instance of the Legal Remembrancer of Bengal, and that the matter is one of urgency, and further stating the facts on which he relies, all of which will be supported by affidavits, which he undertakes to file forthwith. It is ordered that, instead of issuing a Rule, special leave be given to serve notice of motion of the application for Wednesday the 11th day, of June instant at 11 o'clock in the forenoon, such notice to contain a general statement of the grounds. And it is further ordered that the said notice be forthwith served personally on Matilal Ghose, the editor and manager, and on Tarini Kanta Biswas, the printer and publisher of the newspaper called the Amrita Bazar Patrika together with a copy of the petition, affidavits and exhibits and with a copy of this order." A notice of motion was prepared on the same date whereby an order was sought that "Matilal Ghose, editor and manager, and Tarini Kanta Biswas, printer and publisher of the Amrita Bazar Patrika newspaper may be ordered to stand committed to prison for their contempt of Court in respect of the printing and publishing of articles which tend or are calculated to interfere with the due course and administration of justice."

6. The grounds are indicated at the foot of the notice of motion, and consist of a petition of the Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs and three formal affidavits proving the presentation of the complaint, the purchase of the paper, and so forth. On the 11th of June, the day named for the hearing in the notice of motion, an adjournment became necessary as the notice had not been served on one of the respondents, owing to his absence from Calcutta, and the motion could not be brought on till the 18th.

7. A contempt of Court of the class with which we are now concerned is a criminal offence and no person can be punished for it, unless that offence be proved by legal evidenc