RAHMAT ALI Vs. BENI MADHO BAIJPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The petitioner Rehmat Ali obtained a rule upon the opposite parties Pandit Beni Madho Bajpai, the editor, printer and publisher of a newspaper known as Vir Bharat in Kanpur and Lakshmi Narain, the proprietor of the Mahesh Press where the paper is printed, to show cause why they should not be convicted or otherwise dealt with for contempt of Court inasmuch as during the pendency of proceedings under Section 110, Cr. P. C. against Rahmat Ali in the Court of the City Magistrate, Kanpur, a news item was printed in the Vir Bharat on 19th October 1958 which was calculated to produce, so to speak, an atmosphere of prejudice. The news item reads as follows: (Transliteration of Hindi omitted). Translated info English the matter would fread thus: "KANPUR NEWS Members of the Congress Ad Hoc Committee appear in defence of Rahmat Ali a history sheeter and a criminal. The Local Kotwali Police had arrested. Mian Rahmat Ali of Patkapur, a confirmed criminal and a notorious history sheeter under Section 110, Cr. P. C. and his case is peading in the Court of the City Magistrate. It is alleged that as against the police, and in support of Mian Rahmat Ali, two prominent members of the Congress Ad Hoc Committee viz., Hafiz Baitullah and Shri Bhushan Lal Agarwala and also several other persons of the neighbourhood have given evidence." Rahmat Ali in his petition contended that Lakshmi Narain, opposite party No. 2, was the printer and proprietor of the Mahesh Press and in his capacity, as such he is liable for the printing of this news item. It has, however, been made clear by affidavits and by the copy of a declaration made by Pandit Beni Madho Bajpai that Lakshmi Narain is only the proprietor of the press and he is not the printer of the paper. The editor, printer and publisher of the newspaper known as Vir Bharat is Pandit Beni Madho Bajpai. Mr. P.C. Chaturvedi, appearing on behalf of Rahmat Ali, conceded before us that since the application against Lakshmi Narain was founded upon the wrong impression that he is the printer of the paper, Lakshmi Narain is not liable for the publication of the news item and the contempt matter cannot, therefore, proceed against him.

(2.) What we have, therefore, to see is whether, so far as opposite party No. 1 is concerned, the publication of the news item amounts to contempt of Court.

(3.) Pandit Beni Madho Bajpai in his counter-affidavit pleaded justification for printing and publishing this news item. But at the hearing of the petition Mr. Shukla, appearing on his behalf, has contended that he cannot justify the assertions made in that publication and that in view of the manner in which it was printed and published it would amount to contempt and he has expressed regret on the part of his client for having unwittingly committed the contempt. There was, of course, no expression of regret on the part of opposite party No. 1 when the counter-affidavit was filed by him.