Back
1952 Supreme(Nagpur) 80
HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Hemeon, Sen
STATE – Appellant
Versus
BHAWANI PRASAD AND OTHERS – Respondent
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 137 of 1951
Decided on : 25-04-1952
R V S Mani, V T Kedar, W B Pendharkar, Advocates
Publication of comments about pending cases is contempt of Court if it is calculated to prejudice the trial.
Headnote:
CONTEMPT OF COURT - PUBLICATION OF NEWS-ITEMS - REFERRING TO PENDING CASE - INTENTION TO PREJUDICE TRIAL - CONTEMPT ESTABLISHED - NO SENTENCE IMPOSED IN VIEW OF APOLOGY AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES.
Fact of the Case:
Two newspapers published news-items commenting on a pending case, suggesting that the prosecution of a woman was false and that the real culprit was a member of the Janpad Sabha. The Magistrate who tried the case reported the matter to the High Court for action for contempt of Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the publication of the news-items amounted to contempt of Court as they were calculated to prejudice the trial. The Court, however, did not impose any sentence in view of the apology tendered by the non-applicants and other circumstances.
Issues: Whether the publication of the news-items amounted to contempt of Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the publication of the news-items amounted to contempt of Court as they were calculated to prejudice the trial. The Court relied on the following principles: - It is contempt to abuse a party concerning a pending case to prejudice mankind against persons concerning the cause before it is heard. - The intention of the person commenting on a pending proceeding is immaterial in deciding if it amounts to contempt of Court. - Publications of comments about pending cases are to be deprecated and an undertaking of the kind is almost always hazardous.
Final Decision: The Court recorded its grave disapproval of the action of the non-applicants and directed them to pay the costs of paper-books.
1. On the report, dated 14-3-1951, of Gourishankar Shandilya, a member of the Municipal Committee. Deori, the police prosecuted Beti Bai 'alias' Bitola under Sections 294 and 506(1), Indian Penal Code in the Court of Shri R. R. Bharos, Magistrate Second Class, Rehli. The chalan was filed on 26-3-1951. She pleaded guilty. She was convicted and sentenced to fines of Rs. 20/- and Rs. 30/- under Sections 294 and 506(1) respectively on 30-7-1951.
2. During the pendency of the case, the following news-item appeared in 'Prahari' in its issue, dated 22-7-1951 of which Rameshwar Prasad Guru (N. A. No. 2) is the Editor and Publisher, while Bhawani Prasad Tiwari (N. A. No. 1) is the printer:
'Black deeds of Janapada member' It is learned from reliable source that (a member of?) the congress Janapada of Deori who was so to say accused of having caught the 'anchal' of a woman and a report about which was made at the local police station, being a partisan of the Station-House Officer, the case was reversed and started against the woman. The hearing of the said case is going on in the lower Court at present. It is being discussed in the public that he called the said woman in a hotel, rebuked and scolded her. He is a great devotee of officers and from behind them reaps undue advantage from the public. The Municipal Committee had not given the work of supervising lamps to the said person even then taking cover behind it, (he) started the case against that woman. Neither is there any resolution in the Municipal Committee nor is there any order of any officer. This very 'khadi' clad leader on his standing of for M.L.A. (ship) and future Municipal elections, has even resigned from the Municipality, because he always stands for elections. It is not understood why these opportunist leaders have tarnished the name of the Government. It is hoped that the Government will very soon cast a glance of justice towards this. The public has come to know him very well.
The public hopes for an impartial inquiry and decision from the Government." 'Subhchintak' in its issue of 23-7-1951 of which Balgovind Gupta (N. A. No. 3) is the printer and publisher while Narmada Prasad Khare (N. A. No. 4) is the editor and publisher, published the following news-item:
The echo of catching hold of the breast portion of the 'sari' of a woman in the town. Black deed of an opportunist Khadi wearing leader.
In the local town one famous Khadi-wearing leader of Deori who is a Janpad and Municipal Member had given proof of his black deed by committing the alleged offence of catching hold of the 'anchal' (breast-portion of the 'sari') of a lady in March last. The lady had made a report in that connection also at the local station-house. But as the Police Sub-Inspector happened to be partial, no case could be started. But on the contrary, a case was started against the said lady and it is at present pending in the Court. The public wants an impartial enquiry in respect hereof to be made by the Government as to why in this way a case was illegally instituted against the said lady. The reason appears to be fear at the sight of 'khadi'.
3. On 10-9-1951, Shri Bharos submitted a report for action for contempt of Court against the aforesaid printers and publishers as well as Mst. Beti Bai. He observed: It would appear from the two publications that Mst. Beti Bai 'alias' Betola accused and the two newspapers meant to hamper justice by stating therein that this Court was trying a false case and was siding with the police. By these publications an offence under contempt of Court has been committed.
4. The first contention raised by learned Counsel for the non-applicants is that as there was no affidavit accompanying the report, the proceedings are not maintainable. Reliance is placed on R. 16 of Chap. 4 of the High Court Rules and on - ' State Government, Madhya Pradesh v. Vinaya Kumar Parashar, 1952 AIR(Nag) 34. The second contention is that the publications did not refer to the case of Be
