Judgment

GAJENDRAGADRAR, C.J.I. (For himself and for Wanchoo, Mudholkar, Sikri and Ramaswami, JJ.) : The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5 of 1965 - Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar, who is a citizen of India, serves as a Reporter on the Staff of the English Weekly "Blitz", published in Bombay and edited by Mr. R. K. Karanjia. It appears that Mr. Krishnaraj M. D. Thackersey sued Mr. R. K. Karanjia (Suit No. 319 of 1960) on the Original Side of the Bombay High Court, and claimed Rs. 3 lakhs by way of damages for alleged malicious libel published in the Blitz on the 24th September 1960, under the caption "Scandal Bigger Than Mundhra". This suit was tried by Mr. Justice Tarkunde.

2. One of the allegations which had been made in the said article was to the effect that China Cotton Exporters, of which Mr. Thackersey was a partner had obtained licences for import of art silk yarn on condition that the same would be sold to handloom weavers only, and that in order to sell the said silk yarn in the black market with a view to realise higher profits, three bogus handloom factories were created on paper and bills and invoices were made with a view to create the impression that the condition on which the licences had been granted to China Cotton Exporters had been complied with. Mr. Thackersey s concern had thus sold the said yarn in the black market and thereby concealed from taxation the large profits made in that behalf. These allegations purported to be based on the papers filed in Suits Nos. 997 and 998 of 1951 which had been instituted by China Cotton Exporters against National Handloom Weaving Works, Rayon Handloom Industries, and one Bhaichand G. Goda. The said Bhaichand G. Goda was alleged to have been the guarantor in respect of the transactions mentioned in the said suits.

3. The said Bhaichand Goda had, in the course of insolvency proceedings which had been taken out in execution of the decrees passed against him, made an affidavit which seemed to support the main points of the allegations made by the Blitz in its article "Scandal Bigger Than Mundhra."

4. During the course of the trial, the said Bhaichand Goda was called as a defence witness by Mr. Karanjia. In the witness-box, Mr. Goda feigned complete ignorance of the said transactions; and under protection given to him by the learned Judge who was trying the action, he repudiated every one of the allegations he had made against Mr. Thackersey s concern in the said affidavit.Thereupon Mr. Karanjia applied for permission cross examined Mr. Goda and the said permission was granted by the learned Judge. Accordingly, Mr. Goda came to be cross-examined by Mr. Karanjia s counsel.

5. Later, during the course of further proceedings, it was discovered that Mr. Goda had made several statements before the Income-tax authorities in which he had reiterated some of the statements made by him in his affidavit on which he was cross-examined. From the said statements it also appeared that he had alleged that in addition to the invoice price of the transactions in question, he had paid Rs 90,000 as "on money" to China Cotton Exporters. As a result of the discovery of this material, an application was made by Mr. Karanjia before the learned Judge for permission to recall Mr. Goda and confront him with the statements which he had made before the Income-tax authorities. The learned Judge granted the said application.

6. On Friday, the 23rd October 1964, Mr. Goda stepped into the witness box in pursuance of the order passed by the learned Judge that he should be recalled for further examination. On that occasion he moved the learned Judge that the latter should protect him against his evidence being reported in the press. He stated that the publication in the press of his earlier evidence had caused loss to him in business; and so, he desired that the evidence which he had been recalled to give should not be published in the papers. When this request was made by Mr. Goda arguments were addressed before the l