The main legal point established in the judgment is that the publication of articles prejudicing a fair trial constitutes contempt of court, and the tendering of an unconditional apology may serve the purpose of purging the contempt.

1. The petitioner in the Original Petition applies under S.3 and 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act 32 of 1952 for the committal of the first respondent Sri. Kambissery Karunakaran, Chief Editor, 'Janayugam' daily newspaper, Quilon, and second respondent Sri. M. Balakrishnan, Printer and Publisher, Janayugam Publication Ltd., Janayugam Press, Quilon, for alleged contempt of court. The petitioner in the original petition is the brother of Rev. Fr. Benedict Onamkulam, Athirampuzha who on the date of the filing of the original petition was an accused in Crime No. 88 of 1966 of the Ranni Police Station pending enquiry before the Sub Magistrate's Court at Pathanamthitta. The charges against respondents 1 and 2 are that they published in the issue of 'Janayugam' dated 11-8-1966 an article marked Ext. P-1 under the following caption:

and that the entire article would give the impression to the readers that Rev. Fr. Benedict Onamkulam committed the crime. It is alleged that certain photographs were published along with the said article calculated to fasten the guilt on Rev. Fr. Benedict Onamkulam and to prejudice the fair trial of the case. Ext P-1 is alleged to contain certain references to the Magistrate of Pathanamthitta casting reflections on him and alleging that he is trying to help the accused. The article is said to have complimented the police for the steps that they have so far taken against the accused and this is said to be an unfair attempt on the part of the respondents in establishing the guilt of the accused even before the very framing of the charges and the commencement of the trial. The memorandum of charges fled under R.4(b) of the rules dated 2 7 1965 framed by the High Court to regulate proceedings for contempt of the subordinate courts and High Court also contains extracts from Ext. P-1 which bear out the acts of the respondents constituting contempt of court. The Advocate General also was heard before issuing notice to the respondents to show cause why they should not be convicted and punished for contempt of court. The case was posted to 10-10-1966. Respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance through counsel who requested for time on 10.10.1966 to enable him to study the papers. The case was therefore adjourned to 20.10.1966. Respondents 1 and 2 filed counter affidavits on 17. wherein they stated that if it is found that the article Ext. P-1 amounts to contempt of court, they tender unqualified apology for the publication of Ext. P-1. At the request of the learned counsel for the respondents, the case was adjourned to this date to enable the respondents to appear in court and read the apology. Today respondents 1 and 2 have appeared before us and they have expressed their regret to the court. They have filed a supplementary affidavit tendering unconditional apology for the publication of Ext. P-1. We have heard the arguments of the learned Advocate General, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. We have gone through Ext. P-1 and we have no hesitation to hold that it is calculated to obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice or the lawful process of court and it amounts to contempt of court.

2. Lord Hardwicke defined 'contempt of court' in Roach v. Garvan (1742) 2 ATK. 469 in these words: "There are three different sorts of contempt. One kind of contempt is, scandalizing the court itself. There may be likewise a contempt of this court, in abusing parties who are concerned in causes here.

There may be also a contempt of this court, in prejudicing mankind against persons before the cause is heard.

There cannot be any thing of greater consequence, than to keep the streams of justice clear and pure, that parties may proceed with safety both to themselves and their characters."

3. The definition of 'contempt of court' by Lord Russel in The Queen v. Gray (1900) 2 Q. B. D. 36 at p. 40 is as follows:

"Any act done or writing published calculated to bring a