K SVASAN Vs. ARTHUR H ETAYLOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 3, Contempt of Courts Act. In the affidavit filed along with the application the petitioner is stated to be an accused along with 25 others in C. C. No. 1221/51-52 on the file of the Special First Class Magistrate, K. G. F., for alleged offences under Sections 34, 114, 120 and 436, I. P. C. The case against the accused in that case is said to be that A-1 to A-26 conspired together to cause mischief by fire in Nundydroog Mines and in pursuance of such conspiracy A-1 to A-4 and A-23 to A-26 caused such mischief by fire on 20-8-1951 resulting in damage to the mine and loss to the management of the value of about Rs. 20,000/-. While the matter was thus 'sub judice' Mr. Arthur H. E. Taylor who is the Managing Director of Messrs John Taylor and Sons, India Ltd., presiding over an Annual General Meeting of the Mining Companies held on 27th and 28-2-1951 is said to have stated as follows: "The regrettable outbreaks of fire which have occurred in the Mine since the close of the period under review have cast a shadow over this year's working. These outbreaks were undoubtedly due to sabotage and have resulted in loss to the company, labour and Government and, though loss of life in fact did not take place, this might well have been the case. The police have instituted criminal proceedings against certain persons accused of being connected with these acts of sabotage." He is said to have also caused the same to be published in the Deccan Herlad and the Hindu-There is no complaint against these newspapers and we have not been asked to take action against them.

(2.) The petitioner complains that the speech of the respondent and its publication in the newspapers characterising the fire in the mine as being undoubtedly due to sabotage and stating that the police have instituted criminal proceedings against certain persons accused of being connected with these acts of sabotage are misleading and prejudicial and are a vilification of the accused and amount to contempt of Court.

(3.) Mr. Shamanna, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended before us that the effect of such a statement and its publication amount to interference with the course of justice as the respondent has arrogated to himself the role of an investigator and usurped to himself the function of the Court of law by expressing an opinion on a matter which was sub judice'. It was also an attempt to influence the public, the shares-holders of the Mining Companies to be prejudiced against the accused in the criminal proceedings and would tend to prevent the Court from adjudicating and doing justice in the case on the facts before it. There is no doubt some room for complaining that the respondent has, by saying that the incidents which are alleged to have taken place on 20-8-1951 were undoubtedly due to sabotage, given expression to an opinion on a matter which is 'sub judice' and this might well have been avoided. But the circumstances under which that statement was made and whether it would tend to prejudice the fair and impartial trial of the case and would therefore amount to contempt is a matter for consideration. It appears to have been not merely proper to the Managing Director of the Mining Companies but even his duty to report to the shareholders at a General Body meeting what in the view of the management was the cause for those incidents. The reference is not to any of the accused personally nor has he said that the accused who are now being prosecuted are guilty. He has merely stated that the Police had instituted criminal proceedings against certain persons accused of being connected with these acts.