Publications that are calculated to interfere with the due course of justice or the lawful process of the Court are contemptuous.

Tek Chand, J.

1. This is an application under Section 3 of the Contempt) of Courts Act, 1952, of Rao Har Narain Singh, who, along with others, is awailing trial before the Sessions Judge on the allegation that he and the other accused committed offences under Sections 302, 201, 376, etc., of Indian Penal Code, on Sarti Devi deceased, wife of one Kalu, who died in the house of Rao Har Narain Singh on the night between 18th and 19th April, 1957.

2. The respondent in this case is the Proprietor, Editor, Publisher and Printer of a newspaper "Mewat", which is printed in Hindi and in Urdu, though not regularly. Rao Har Narain Singh was arrested on 18th May, 1957, and the challan was put in the Court of the Committing Magistrate on 10th July, 1957. The Magistrate, by his order dated 3rd September, 1957, committed him to stand his trial before the Court of Session. In the application under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, which is now before me for disposal, the petitioner, who is an Advocate, has stated, that he is a resident of Gurgaon town and previous to his arrest for the offences mentioned above, he was working as an Additional Public Prosecutor. The respondent published in the various issues of his paper, beginning from April, 1957, news items and comments regarding the commission of the offences for which the petitioner and others have been charged. The petitioner complains, that there has been on the part of the respondent, a persistent press campaign against him and other accused with a view to poison the mind of the general public against them. It is urged that the comments are in the nature of a calumny on the conduct and character of the petitioner and of some people who may be appearing as witresses. The newspaper propaganda is said to be malicious in character, and the articles appearing were deliberately designed to create an atmosphere of sympathy for the deceased and with the intention of mobilising public opinion against the petitioner and the other accused. It is also stated, that the respondent: has been at pains to eulogize the steps whch have been taken by the police and other officers regarding investigation of the case and the arrest of the accused. It is alleged that the newspaper reports have a tendency to interfere with the fair trial of the case, to the prejudice of the petitioner. The petitioner has attached with his application several issues of the "Mewat", annexures A to O of different dates. Out of these, annexures A to L were filed along with the petition on 13th October, 1957, and the remaining three annexures, M, N and O, were put in by the petitioners counsel on 14th November, 1957.

3. In his written statement the respondent has maintained that he has not committed contempt of Court. The respondent contends that the incident mentioned in the newspaper was of great public importance, and the items appearing in the various issues did not create prejudice against the accused, and did not affect the reputation of the petitioner. He made a fair comment on an incident regarding the death of a young woman under suspicious circumstances. He also stated that a formal report was lodged by the Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon, on llth May, 1957, as there were many rumours in circulation as to the sinister and suspicious manner in which the woman had met her death. He said, that after the investigation had been entrusted to the C. I, D., and Sham Lal, Station House Officer of Sadar Police Station Gurgaon, had been transferred, he eulogized the honest and untiring manner in which the investigation was being carried on by the C. I. D. officials. He denied that there was anything in the publications, which amounted to abusing the petitioner or his co-accused or prejudicing mankind against them, before the cause was heard or doing of anything else, which, in any manner could amount to contempt of Court.

4. Before determining whether the respondent had committed contempt of Court, it will not be o