The intention of the respondents in publishing the article was immaterial, and a cause need not be actually pending before the court for action to be taken for contempt of court.

1. This is an application filed by the Government Pleader under S.3,4 and 5 of the Contempt of Court, Act - Central Act XXXII of 1952, for taking such action as this court thinks fit under the circumstances, against both the respondents herein.

2. The first respondent Sri Mathai Manjuran is the editor and the second respondent Sri. K. Sudhakaran is the publisher of the Malayalam Daily newspaper called 'Kerala Prakasom' printed and published at Ernakulam.

3. In the petition filed by the Government Pleader, it is stated that in the issue of the newspaper dated 29th July 1958, the respondents have published a report purporting to be an account of the occurrence on the 26th July 1958 at Varandarappally (near Trichur). In that occurrence, about 5 people lost their lives and several others sustained injuries.

4. The heading of the report is:

A copy of the issue of the said paper of the said date has also been attached along with the petition.

5. It is further stated that proceedings under the Cr. P. C. by way of investigation into the occurrence were taken almost immediately to bring the offenders to trial in a court of law and that it was also obvious and well known that a trial of the case in a court of law was imminent.

6. Para.4 of the petition filed by the Government Pleader gives verbatim the report published in the said paper about the occurrence.

7. It is further stated that the said report published by the respondents in the 'Kerala Prakasom' tends to interfere with the fair trial of the case and to obstruct the course of justice and the proper administration of law. The occurrence itself appears to have given rise to rival versions and the court, which has to try the case, has to inquire and decide which, if any, of these versions is true and also as to who, if any, are guilty.

8. It is further stated by the Government Pleader that the report in the newspaper proceeds on the assumption that certain persons are guilty and that certain others are not. The Petition winds up by submitting that the respondents, by publishing such a report, are guilty of contempt of court. The petition by the Government Pleader was filed on 12-9-1958. The full text of the report appearing in the said newspaper, together with its head lines, and which is the subject of this application is given by us in full as an Annexure to this judgment.

9. The Secretary, Home Department of the Government of Kerala, has filed an affidavit in this application on 10-10-1958. The affidavit incorporates all the matters mentioned in the petition originally filed by the Government Pleader. In Para.3 of the affidavit of the Home Secretary, the title of the article is extracted In Para.4 of the affidavit, it is stated that the Police Department of the State started proceedings immediately under the Cr. P. C. by way of investigation into the occurrence with a view to bring the offenders to trial in a court of law and the said proceedings are still pending. It is also stated that it was a well known fact that the trial of the case in a court of law was imminent.

10. Para.5 of the Home Secretary's affidavit extracts in full the article published in the 'Kerala Prakasom' dated 29th July 1958 and which has already been extracted in Para.4 of the petition filed by the Government Pleader. In Para.6 of the affidavit it is stated that the occurrence appears to have given rise to rival versions and the question for enquiry and decision by the court is, which, if any, of these versions is true and who if any, are guilty and if so, to what extent. It is also stated that the report in the newspaper proceeds on the assumption that certain persons are guilty and certain other persons are not. In Para.7 it is stated that the Government are advised that the respondents, by publishing the said report, have committed contempt of this Hon'ble Court and the deponent prays for action being taken accordingly.

11. In Para.8 it is stated that the attention of the State Government was drawn t