Publication of comments about pending cases is to be deprecated and an undertaking of the kind is almost always hazardous. Newspapers and others must avoid such comments and if they choose to make them, they will do so at their own peril.

1. The Order of the Court was delivered by Sen J.-- On the report, dated the 14th March 1951 of Gourishankar Shandilya, a member of the Municipal Committee, Deori, the police prosecuted Beti Bai alias Bitola under sections 294 and 506 (1) of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Shri R. R. Bharos, Magistrate, Second Class, Rehli. The chalan was filed on 26th March 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 30th July 1951.

2. During the pendency of the case, the following news-item appeared in "Prahari" in its issue, dated the 22nd July 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 learnt from reliable source that 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 Section-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 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.

3. "Subhchintak" in its issue of the 23rd July 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.

4. On 10th September 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 offience under contempt of court has been committed.

5. 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 Rule 16 of Chapter 4 of the High Court Rules and on State Government, Madhya Pradesh v. Vinaya Kumar Parashar (1). The second contenti