STATE Vs. FAQIR CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Upon an application made on behalf of the State against Faqir Chand and Chandra Kumar Saxena respondents, notice had been issued to them to show cause why they should not be convicted for the contempt of the court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate of Shahabad. The respondents made their appearance personally in Court and they were further represented by Mr. D. P. Agarwala and in the counter-affidavit filed by them they tendered an unqualified apology and threw themselves at the mercy of the Court. On the 25-3-1957, we refrained from accepting the apology at that stage and from disposing of the matter finally and we granted the respondents a month's time to equip themselves with costs in the sum of Rs. 80/- which they may ultimately have to pay to the Deputy Government Advocate who represented the State. We directed on that date that the matter be listed for hearing on the 29-4-1957, and that if the costs aforesaid were paid up to the Deputy Government Advocate by the 28-4-1957, the personal attendance of the opposite parties on the 29-4-1957. will be dispensed with. The costs were not paid and on the 29-4-1957, at the request of counsel the matter was directed to be put up for hearing on the 1-5-1957. Again, on the 1-5-1957, at the request of counsel the case was listed for hearing on the 3-5-1957, and direction had been given that the respondents should be present in person on that date. There was a further direction, that it would be open to the opposite-parties to pay up the amount in question before the case is taken up for hearing on the 3-5-1957, and that in that event if they do so their personal attendance will be dispensed with on the 3rd. On the 3rd the case could not be reached on the list and the matter has finally come up before us today. It may be stated that on the 29-4-1957, a telegram had been sent by the respondents to the Court to the following effect:

(2.) The respondents are not present in spite of the directions of the Court and Mr. D. P. Agarwala has stated that although he had informed the respondents by telegram on the 1-5-1957, they have not thought it fit or wise to come up before the Court in compliance with the Court's orders. This is a very strong circumstance, apart from the merits of the apology tendered by them, to bring us to the conclusion that the apology was only a sham apology and had had no real expression of regret behind it.

(3.) The facts may be stated. On the 14-6-1956 the case of State v. Khurshid Ali and Zahid Ali under Sections 323 and 307, I. P. C. challaned by the Shahabad police was registered in the Court of the S. D. M. Shahabad, upon the allegation that on the 1-6-1956, Constable Ramji Mal accompanied by one Riyasat All went for the service of summons on one Jainu Mian who was a witness in a case under Section 60 of the Excise Act against Khurshid Ali. At the time of the service Khurshid Ali and his son Zahid came to know of it and they both gave a threat to Raiyasat Ali that they will not spare any effort to resist service. It is said that they began to beat Riyasat and Ramji Mal Constable causing grievous injuries to them, with the result that the summons could not be served on Jainu Mian. It may be pointed out that Riyasat Ali is the brother of Jainu Mian. Khurshid Ali filed a counter complaint against Sub-Inspector Sukhnandan Prasad Misra, Riyasat Ali and Abdul Wahab under Sections 325 and 342, I. P. C. with the allegation that these persons entered into his house on the 1-6-1956, and when they were turned out by him and his son Zahid Ali, he, namely, Khurshid Ali was arrested and he was given a beating with lathis while he was being carried to the police station, causing grievous injuries, and that he was unlawfully detained at the police station. This counter complaint was registered in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shahabad. on the 26-6-1956. When both these cases were pending in that court there appeared a news-item in a local weekly paper of Shahabad styled as the "Sathi", of which respondent No. 1 happens to be the editor and respondent No. 2 the publisher. This news was published under the banner headline: