The publication of articles in newspapers that make prejudicial comments about pending criminal cases amounts to contempt of court, and the editor and publisher of the newspaper can be held liable for contempt of court for allowing the publication of such articles.

Notices were issued to Kamla Ram Nautiyal Advocate, Vidya Sagar Nautiyal, Maya Ram Ratauri, Udel, a communist M.L.A. of Banaras, Yogendra Sharma, editor, Janyug, New Delhi, Ramesh Sinha, Publisher, Janyug, New Delhi and Radha Krishna Kukreti, Editor, Naya Zamana, Dehradun to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of Court.

2. Two criminal cases, Nos. 241 of 1967 and 246 of 1967, against V.K. Agarwal, clerk of the Assistant Engineer, P. W. D. Uttar Kashi, under S.3(7) of the Essential Commodities Act and under S.465, Penal Code were registered on 21-9-67 and 25-9-67. The charge sheets were issued by the Investigating Officer on 10-10-67, in both the cases, and they have been pending in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Bhatwari, district Uttar Kashi since 25-10-67 and 6-11-67 respectively. The aforesaid cases had been registered on the reports made by Kamla Ram Nautiyal, Secretary of the Communist Party of Uttar Kashi.

It was alleged by V.K. Agarwal that Kamla Ram Nautiyal had delivered speeches in Hanuman Chowk, Uttar Kashi on 30-9-67, 23-10-67, 5-11-67 and 20-11-67. He gave extracts from the aforesaid speeches delivered by Kamla Ram Nautiyal and contended that they contained matter which amounted to contempt of Court. A notice was issued on behalf of the District Communist Party of Uttar Kashi in which a reference was made to the aforesaid cases. The date of the publication of the aforesaid notice is not clear from the record. The 'Naya Zamana' dated 7-10-67 carried the report of a speech delivered by K.R. Nautiyal in which reference was made to the aforesaid cases. Again on 5-11-67 the "Jan-Yug" published an article by opposite party Vidya Sagar Nautiyal which made reference to the aforesaid cases.

3. It is not possible for me to place reliance on the extracts of speeches which were said to have been delivered by K.R. Nautiyal on the aforesaid dates as mentioned by the complainant V.K. Agarwal. There is nothing on the record to show that the aforesaid extracts are true and they were part of the speeches which were in fact delivered by K.R. Nautiyal. It was however admitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the impugned matter which appeared in the 'Naya Zamana' and the 'Jan Yug' was correct and it was not denied that it contained matters which were spoken or written by the opposite parties concerned.

4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that any objectionable reference to proceedings which did not travel beyond the range of administrative inquiry could not be said to constitute contempt of Court. He relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Dwarka Prasad v. Krishna Chandra, AIR 1953 All 600 in which it was observed :

''We are of the opinion that contempt proceedings cannot be taken in connection with the publication of news or articles as long as criminal case is during the course of investigation and has not actually come to the Magistrate's Court for enquiry or trial."

It further observed :

"The procedure in England being different from that in India, we find ourselves unable to follow the decision in the above-noted English case and to hold that proceedings in Court start, as soon as a warrant has been issued or an arrest made."

It was conceded by the learned counsel for the State that the two cases were pending in the Court of the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate from 25-10-67 and 6-11-67. It would follow that what was published in the Naya Zamana on 7-10-67 could not form the subject matter of contempt of Court.

5. The same, however, could not be said about the article of Vidya Sagar Nautiyal which appeared in 'Janyug' dated 5-11-67. In the aforesaid article it was said (translation is mine) :

"Some forged ration cards were recovered from the possession of Virendra Kumar, a clerk in the office of the Asstt. Engineer, P.W.D. by the workers of the Communist Party which Virendra Kumar had made in the names of the gangmen and labourers. The aforesaid case