E T SEN Vs. EDATATA NARAYANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two criminal original applications (Criminal Original Nos. 39 and 40 of 1968) by Brig. E. T. Sen (Retd.) under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 215 of the Constitution, raising as they do common questions, are being disposed of by one order.

(2.) Brig. E. T. Sen is a retired Brigadier of the Indian Army, having retired in May, 1967 and is at present the Reser and Publisher and Shri Vidya Rattan, respondent No. 3, is the Correspondent of the "Patriot", which is a local English Daily Newspaper published from New Delhi. According to the Petitioner, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are siding with D. P. Sinha and doing their best to poison the public opinion against the petitioner. He has referred to the contents of the iues of the "Patriot" dated 13.7.1968, 14.7.1968, 19.5.1968, 8.6.1968, 2.7.1968, 21.7.1968, 4.8.1968 and 13.8.1968 in support of the submission and it is averred that from the circumstances narrated in the application, as also from the manner of reporting, it is apparent that there is a persistent one-sided press campaign by the "Patriot" against the cause of the petitioner with a view to poisoning the mind of the general public and thereby hampering the course of justice. The grounds on which this application has been moved read as under :-

(3.) Turning now to Crl. O. 40 of 1968 in which Shri D. P. Sinha, respondent No. 1, is the Printer and Publisher of the "New Age" and Shri Bhupesh Gupta, respondent No. 2, the Editor of the said newspaper, it is averred that these respondents, while reporting the Court's proceeding of the criminal complaint under sections 500, 501, 502, Indian Penal Code, against Shri D. P. Sinha, have been carrying on a calculated and persisted press campaign through the columns of the aforesaid newspaper against the prosecution with a view to poison the mind of the general public so as to hamper a fair trial of the complaint. The composition of the headlines and the nature of display of the reports about the criminal case in question are maliciously designed to impress upon the mind of the public that the prosecution case was a weak one and that the prosecution was not likely to succeed in proving guilt of the accused. The respondents have published material which is not legal evidence in the case and have given such scaring, mischievious and suggestive headlines in block letters that the same is bound to poision the mind of the public, the witnesses for the prosecution and thus to hamper the conduct of a fair and impartial trial. The respondents it is pleaded have gone a step further by publishing the result of an alleged parallel enquiry conducted by the English local daily the "Patriot". The tendency of the reporting has been described :-