LAKHAN SINGH Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application praying that the opposite parties be committed for contempt of Court and be dealt with according to law. The opposite parties are two persons, Chau-dhari Balbir singh and Sri Balswarup Gupta. Chaudhari Balbir Singh is the Managing Editor, publisher and printer of an Urdu Weekly known as 'hindustan Weekly, Meerut' and opposite party 2, balswarup Gupta is alleged to be the Editor in charge of the paper. The applicant is a thekedar of a country liquor shop at Muzaffar-nager. He acquired the theka at a public auction held on 22-3-1951, for a period of one year. He was the thekedar of country liquor in the previous year also. On 6-2-1951, the Tahsildar seized some bottles containing liquor on suspicion that the liquor was diluted. As dilution of liquor was in contravention of the terms of the licence, a case under Section 64, Excise Act, was started on 6-4-1951 against the applicant after permission had been obtained for the same from the District Magistrate. The case is still pending in the Court of the Magistrate, Sri Uma Shanker. The Hindustan Weekly in a noto dated 6-6-1951 referred to this case against the applicant in these words :

(2.) IN its issue of 27-6-1951 it published a note headed 'zilla Muzaffarnagar ke thekedaran sharab'. It was in these terms:

(3.) THE applicant's case is that the matter published in the issue of 27-6-1951 and 11/18-7-1951 was published with a view to prejudice the applicant before the public and before the Court and there was an attempt to fore-judge the case against the applicant while it was pending in Court. On behalf of the opposite parties it has been contended that the articles complained of do not constitute contempt of Court and that, in any case, after the amendment of Article 19 (2} the restrictions placed upon the right of freedom of expression by the old law of contempt of Court could not be said to be reasonable within the meaning of the amended Article 19 (2) and as such the opposite parties could not be held guilty of contempt of Court. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the opposite parties a petition accompanied by an affidavit has been sent to the Court by post by opposite party 2 in which it is stated that the opposite party 2 is a secretary of the Saharanpur National Trading Co. Ltd. , Meerut--the company which manages and conducts the paper "hindustan Weekly Meerut" and that he is concerned only with the general office routine of the newspaper office in his capacity as Secretary of the company and is not concerned with the publication of the offending items; that under Article 215 of the Indian constitution the High Court can punish for contempt of itself and cannot commit for contempt of courts subordinate to it; that the affidavit of Lakhan Singh is incomplete inasmuch as it has not been mentioned therein as to who was in contempt and what are the attending circumstances and lastly that if contempt was at all committed it was of a very minor and technical nature and was likely to be overlooked.