Knowledge of the pendency or imminence of proceedings is not a necessary element in all cases of contempt of court. The Court may find a person guilty of contempt irrespective of knowledge in cases where the conduct complained of is inherently wrong and is committed by a person in reckless disregard of all moral or penal laws, or where the person is placed in a position where they would necessarily have knowledge of the pendency of proceedings.

( 1 ) THIS is an application under the Contempt of Courts Act. The petitioner in the case is Sri rajendra Kumar Garg, Pleader, Collectorate Saharanpur. The opposite parties arrayed in the application are (1) Syed Shafiq Ahmad Azad, Managing. Editor, "azad" Urdu Weeking, and (2)Rashid Ahmad Ghazi, Editor "azad" Urdu Weekly, Saharanpur. The petitioner in the said application prayed for action under the Contempt of Courts Act against the opposite parties in respect of an article published in the "azad" Urdu Weekly on 1-5-1955.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the arguments of the parties, it would be necessary to narrate the chain of events which culminated in the publication of the aforesaid article. It would appear that in saharanpur there is a factory called Lord Krishna sugar Mills, Saharanpur. On the night between the 28th and 29th March, 1955, the workers of that mill went on strike. The strike, appears to be the result of the strained relations between the workers and the mill owners and the refusal on the part of the latter to accede to certain demands of the former. On 29-3-1955, there was a meeting in which the cultivators who were sugarcane suppliers to the said mill were present. This meeting was also attended by Sri B. P. Seth, the District Magistrate, saharanpur, and Sri Rajendra Kumar Garg, the petitioner. In the course of that meeting certain events happened which led to a conflict between the Collector on the one hand and the petitioner and his associates on the other. The version of the incident which was the cause of trouble appears to be discrepant. According to one party, which would appear to be the party of the petitioner, the Collector addressed some words to the sugarcane suppliers which were taken exception to by the petitioner on the ground that they tended to create a division between the agriculturist and the Workers. This was resented by the Collector who ordered the arrest of the petitioner and his associates Sri raj Kumar Vokra and Rao Mukhtar Ali Khan. The allegation of the other party appears to be that the petitioner Sri Rajendra Kumar Garg adopted a threatening attitude towards the Collector. It is alleged that he showed his shoe to the Collector and behaved in a most rude fashion. We are, however, not concerned with the truth behind the allegations of the rival parties. All that we are concerned with in this case is the fact that the events of the said meeting gave rise to two cases. The first case is said to be a case under Section 107/117, Criminal P. C. which was instituted against the petitioner and his associates. Another case is said to be a case under sections 342 and 252, I. P. C. filed by the petitioner Sri Rajendra Kumar Garg against the district Magistrate and others. The former case is said to be pending in the Court of the sub-Divisional Magistrate, Saharanpur, and the latter in the Court of the City Munsif, saharanpur, on 1-5-1955, when the offending article is said to have appeared in the "azad" weekly. A third case under Section 353, I. P. C. (State v. Rajendra Kumar Garg and others) is said to be under investigation on the said date. It would be relevant to mention that the happenings of 29-3-1955, seemed to have developed into a wider controversy between the respective merits of the various systems of Government. The matter appears to have been taken up by the local papers, some taking one view and the others taking a contrary view. On 4-4-1955, an editorial appeared in a paper called the "bedar" which appears to be a paper of communist tendencies. In this article a reference was made to the strike of the workers on the night between the 28th and 29th of March, 1955, and the main demands of the workers were enumerated. It was then mentioned that the District Magistrate, had formed a committee to arbitrate in the matter and that, in spite of the promise made by the District Magistrate the decision of the matter was being delayed. Serious aspersions were made on the conduct