Back
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Narasimham And P. V. B. Rao, JJ.
STATE - Appellant
Versus
BISWANATH MOHAPATRA - Respondent
Original Criminal Misc. 3 Of 1954
Decided On : NOVEMBER 08, 1954
CONTEMPT OF COURT - PUBLICATION OF ARTICLE WITH TENDENCY TO INTERFERE WITH FAIR TRIAL - KNOWLEDGE OF PENDENCY OF CASE NOT ESSENTIAL - ABSENCE OF KNOWLEDGE MAY BE INFERRED FROM CONTENTS OF ARTICLE - EXPLANATION OF EDITOR NOT ACCEPTED - SENTENCE OF FINE IMPOSED.
Fact of the Case:
The editor of a weekly newspaper published an article alleging that the local police were harassing a poor man and helping two rich men to burn his house and cut away his crops. The article was published during the pendency of a criminal case in which the two rich men were accused of committing the alleged offences.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the article had a tendency to interfere with the fair trial of the criminal case and that the editor was aware of the imminence of the proceeding. The court rejected the editor's argument that he had no knowledge of the pendency of the case, holding that such knowledge was not essential for a finding of contempt.
Issues: Whether the publication of the article constituted contempt of court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the publication of the article constituted contempt of court because it had a tendency to interfere with the fair trial of the criminal case. The court further held that knowledge of the pendency of the case was not essential for a finding of contempt, and that the editor's explanation that he had no such knowledge was not accepted.
Final Decision: The court imposed a sentence of fine on the editor of the newspaper.
NARASIMHAM, J.
( 1 ) THIS rule was issued on the editor and publisher (the opposite party) of an Oriya weekly named The Utkal Bharat of Berhampur for contempt of Court on ground that during the pendency of T. R. Case No. 16 of 1953 in the Court of the Munsif magistrate (1st class) of Aska the said editor published an article in his Weekly dated 19-2-1054 which had a tendency to interfere with the free course of justice. The rule was based on a report submitted to this Court by the Munsif-Magistrate of aska.
( 2 ) THE unchallenged facts are as follows: On 12-3-1953 one Uchhab Patra of village Chatula, p. s. Gangpur, district Ganjam, filed a complaint in the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Russelkonda alleging that Gopinath Dora, krishnamurti Dora and fourteen other persons of his village had committed criminal trespass inside his house on 12-1-53, looted all his moveable properties and burnt a substantial portion of the same after secreting the rest. This highhanded action was said to have been committed on account of previous bitter enmity between the parties. He further alleged that when he gave information about this incident to the Sub-inspector of Police of Gangpur thana, the latter abused him and refused to take any action and that both the Sub-Inspector and the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police of Gangpur thana were against him. The S. D. O. directed local enquiry by a revenue Inspector and on the basis of his report summoned the accused persons for offences under Sections 379, 435 and 448, I. P. C. On 10-6-53, he transferred the case to the file of the Munsif-Magistrate of Aska for disposal. The case dragged on in the usual way in the Court of the Munsif-Magistrate for nearly six months and by 18-2-54, eleven prosecution witnesses had been examined, charge framed under Section 380 I. P. C. against Gopinath Dora, krushnamurti Dora and others and cross-examination of most of the prosecution witnesses after charge was also completed. The case was then adjourned to 20-3-54 for cross-examination of the remaining two prosecution witnesses namely, P. Ws. 4 and 6. Thus when the case for the prosecution was practically over the impugned article appeared in 'the Utkal bharat' on 19-2-54. That article is as follows (English translation):
"'on whose side is the Police'. Acute friction is going on between two factions in village Chatula near Kendupadar. It, is reported that the Sub-Inspector of Police of Gangpur Sri Mori Panda has taken, the side of rich man and is harassing the weaker party. He went to the extent of helping two rich men of the village named Gopinath Dora and Krushnamurti dora to burn the house of a very poor man of the village named Uchhab patra and to cut away his paddy crops. And it is also reported that in that area oppression by the Police has increased considerably. Will the A. S. P. police of Bhanja-nagar kindly look into the matter?"
( 3 ) ON 8-5-54, the accused persons of that case filed a petition before the Munsif-Magistrate alleging contempt had been committed -by the publication of the said article in 'the Utkal Bharat'. The Munsif-Magistrate then submitted his report to this Court for necessary action against the editor and publisher of the said Weekly and on 14-5-54 he delivered judgment in that case convicting the accused persons under Section 380, I. P. C. and sentencing them to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- each.
( 4 ) THOUGH the impugned article has been very cleverly worded so as not to refer to any pending case there can be no doubt that it has a tendency to interfere with the fair trial of T. R. Case No. 16 of 1953 then pending in the Court of the Munsif-Magistrate of Aska. The complainant of that case and the two principal accused persons and the name of their village have all been given in the offending articles. The complainant has been described as a Very poor' (that gariba) man and the two principal accused persons have been referred to as rich man of
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
