PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
A.N.Bhandari, J.
Leo Roy Frey
Versus
R.Prasad
Criminal Original No. 13 of 1957,
Decided On : MARCH 10, 1958
CONTEMPT OF COURT - PUBLICATION OF MATTER PREJUDICIAL TO FAIR TRIAL - NEWSPAPER ARTICLES - INTENTION OR REASONABLE CALCULATION TO PREJUDICE FAIR TRIAL - INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL PROVISIONS - APPLICATION OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES - ANALYSIS OF COURT'S DECISION - FINAL DECISION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an American stockbroker, was arrested for attempting to smuggle Indian and foreign currency out of India. The Collector of Customs imposed a penalty on him and released copies of the order to the press. The respondents, editors and publishers of two newspapers, published articles about the incident, including photographs of the petitioner and the car in which he was travelling. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, alleging that the publications were calculated to prejudice his fair trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the publications were not intended to prejudice the fair trial of the case and that the contempt, if any, which had been committed was purely technical. The court found that the circumstances of the case did not justify taking action under the Contempt of Courts Act, particularly as a sincere apology had been tendered by the respondents.
Issues: 1. Whether the publications in question were intended or reasonably calculated to prejudice the fair trial of the case. 2. Whether the contempt, if any, which had been committed was purely technical. 3. Whether the circumstances of the case justified taking action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the publications were not intended to prejudice the fair trial of the case because the respondents had no intention to prejudice the fair decision of the criminal charges which were pending against the petitioner. 2. The court held that the contempt, if any, which had been committed was purely technical because the publications did not contain any statements which were not already in the public domain. 3. The court held that the circumstances of the case did not justify taking action under the Contempt of Courts Act because the respondents had tendered a sincere apology.
Final Decision: The court discharged the notice but left the parties to bear their own costs.
A.N.Bhandari, J.
1. This petition under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act raises the question whether the respondents have published matter which is intended or reasonably calculated to prejudice the fair trial of a criminal case.
2. The petitioner in this case is one Mr. Leo Roy Frey, an American stock broker, while the respondents are the Editor, Printer and Publisher of the Statesman and the Editor, Printer and Publisher of the Tribune.
3. On 23-6-1957 Mr. Dana, a citizen of Cuba and Mr. Frey, a citizen of California, who were travelling to Pakistan in a luxury American car, presented themselves at the Attari Road Land Customs Station for completing the customs formalities. They filled in the baggage declaration forms which were handed over to them. Mr. Freys declaration form was found to be correct in all particulars except only that he had omitted to declare a. 28 revolver which was recovered from his possession. Mr. Danas form was not found to be correct, for a search of the car in which these two passengers were travelling revealed the presence of a secret chamber above the petrol tank which contained Indian currency of the value of Rs. 8,50,000/- and United States currency of the value of 10,000 dollars. As neither of the two passengers could produce the necessary permission from the Reserve Bank of India for the export of so large a sum of money from the country, the Customs officials took the currency as well as the pistol and the cartridges into possession. The documents seized in connection with this case appeared to indicate that one Moshe Baruk was a party to this conspiracy to smuggle the aforesaid currency out of India.
4. On 6-7-1957 the police produced the petitioner in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate at Amritsar under the provisions of the Indian Arms Act & on the same day the Collector of Customs presented an application under the Sea Customs Act and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act in which he alleged that he suspected the petitioner of having conspired with Dana for endeavouring to smuggle Indian currency out of the border of the country. The Additional District Magistrate ordered the release of the petitioner on bail in a sum of Rs. 10,000/-in the case under the Indian Arms Act and a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in the case under the Sea Customs Act.
5. On 9-7-1957 the Collector of Customs called upon the petitioner to show cause why penal action should not be taken against him under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act and under Section 7(2) of the Land Customs Act for attempting to export prohibited articles from this country. The petitioner replied that as he was being prosecuted under the provisions of the Sea Customs Act, the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the Indian Arms Act and as the matter was sub judice he would be prejudiced in his defence in those cases by any statements or documents which he may like to give or produce in compliance with the show-cause notice. He added, however, that he had nothing to do with the money recovered from the car, that his declaration was found to be correct, that no breach of any law had therefore been committed on his account and that he was not guilty of having contravened the provisions of the Sea Customs Act or the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
6. On 24-7-1957 the Collector imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,00,000/- on each of these two passengers by means of an order, the concluding portion of which is in the following terms:
"Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, I find that both Sarvshri Thomas Dana and Leo Roy Frey are equally guilty of the offence. They attempted to smuggle Indian and foreign currency out of India. I hold both of them as the persons concerned in the offence committed under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. The foregoing facts prove beyond doubt that the offence was the result of a most deliberate and calculated conspiracy to smuggle the huge sum of currency out of the country. The of
M.Y. Shareef V/s. Hon Ble Judges Of Nagpur High Court
Rajendra Kumar V/s. Shafiq Ahmad
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.