JUDGMENT

1. One Brij Lal, thekedar, on 28th January 1939 filed a complaint under Section 426, I.P.C., for mischief against nine per-sons in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Officer Nighasan. It was transferred to the Court of the Tahsildar Magistrate of Nighasan. The learned Magistrate convicted all the nine accused on 27th May 1939. On 23rd April 1939, Hamid Ali Gardish, who is the proprietor, printer and publisher of the newspaper " Dost" printed the following article in his newspaper:

"RUIN OF TENANTS."

Our correspondent from Nighasan informs us that Brij Lal, resident of Mauza Nakaiha, a hamlet of Jatpurwa, was a thekedar of Raqam Sewai from the Khairigarh estate. He wanted to realize new kind of items from the tenants of Lakhania village. When they refused to pay them then false cases have been started against the tenants Hence the tenants are involved in four separate cases. Mr. Khushwaqt Rai has already written about all this to the District Magistrate.

"FLASE REPORTS MADE AT THE POLICE STATION DHAURAURA."

The above mentioed Brij Lal on account of enmity makes false reports against the tenants of Lakhania and he also gets his servants to make false reports. It is hoped that the police officer of Dhauraura police station will be careful of this man.

2. The accused on 9th May 1939 filed a copy, of the article quoted above in their defence. The learned tahsildar brought this fact to the notice of the District Magistrate who reported the matter to this Court for necessary action. A notice was issued from this Court against Hamid Ali Gardish to show cause why he should not be convicted for contempt of Court. He has appeared before us with a counsel and filed the following application:

The accused in the aforenamed case begs to tender an unqulified apology for the article under action and throws himself at the mercy of this Hon'ble Court. I undertake never to commit such an act again and pray to the Hon'ble Court to be pleased to forgive me.

3. We are of opinion that the article grossly offends against the law of contempt of Court. It was clearly an attempt to prejudice the mind of the learned Magistrate in regard to the trial of the case pending in his Court under Section 426, I.P.C. The newspaper-men do not often realize at the time of writing that they are doing something improper or blameworthy. A journalist has no right to write in the tone the accused has used in the article on matters happening in law Courts. The special privilege of the press is a time-worn fallacy, and the sooner the misconception that the press is not accountable to the law is removed the better it will be. No editor has a right to assume the role of investigator or try to prejudice the Court against any person Writing and publishing an article in a newspaper likely to prejudice the course of justice relating to a pending case amounts to a contempt of Court. The question for consideration is whether we should act under the first proviso to Section 3, Contempt of Courts Act, which provides that

the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made by it to the satisfaction of the Court,

or whether we should compel Hamid Ali Gardish to purge his contempt by payment of a fine or the undergoing of a sentence of imprisonment. We put a large number of questions to the accused, and he struck us to be a simple man. We are of opinion that he was foolish in writing the said article. He stated before us that he did not realize the seriousness of the offence. The circulation of the newspaper is very small and we are told that the income is about Rs. 30 a month. We accordingly, while convicting Hamid Ali Gardish of contempt of Court with respect to the Court of the Tahsildar Magistrate at Nighasan, discharge him on his apology.