ASGHARALI Vs. MOTILAL DAVE PRINTER OF GAGAN GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, for committing and punishing the opponents for contempt of Court in respect of certain publications appearing in the issues dated the 7th, 14th and 2lst December 1964, and 4th January 1965, of "Gagan-Ghosh", a weekly paper published from Ratlam.

(2.) THE non-applicants Ishwarlal Paliwal and Amritlal Kothari are editors of the paper. THE non-applicant No. 1 Motilal Dave was the printer of the issues THE issues of the paper, dated 7th and 14th December 1964, were published by the non-applicant Karulal Dave. THE remaining two issues of 21st December 1964 and 4th January 1965 were published by the non-applicant Kanhaiyalal Ugra. THE material facts are that on 27th November 1964 one Lila Bai lodged a report with the Ratlam Police that her daughter Radha had been kidnapped and confined in a building known as 'Jai Hind Niwas,' situated on Station Road, Ratlam. After this report was made, the Police recovered Radha from the said building from the custody of Ramsingh Chowkidar. He was arrested the same day, that is, 27th November 1964. During the course of investigation, the applicant Asgharali was also arrested on 8th December 1964. A challan against the arrested persons in respect of offences under sections 363, 366 and 368, I. P. C, was put up by the Police in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, Ratlam, on 30th December 1964. On 7th December 1964, the paper published a long account of the incident of the recovery of Radha from a room in 'Banswada building" located in the Station area. THE account bore the heading <IMG>JUDGEMENT_844_MPLJ_1965Image1.jpg</IMG> THErein it was stated inter alia that one of the rooms in the building was in possession of the petitioner Asgharali; that Radha was recovered from his room; that five minutes before the arrival of the police on the site Asgharali went away in a tonga; and that the daring act of Asgharali of defiling the virginity and youth of Radha constituted a grave offence which could not be pardoned by the society. THE account ended by an appeal to the Police Superintendent to arrest immediately Asgharali and thus save himself and the Police Department from condemnation. In the account, the applicant Asgharali was described as a debauch <IMG>JUDGEMENT_844_MPLJ_1965Image2.jpg</IMG>

(3.) IN the issue of the paper dated 4th January 1965, there appeared an account of the first hearing of the case against the petitioner Asgharali and Ram-singh before the First Class Magistrate of Ratlam. IN that account, it was mentioned that the Police had become suspicious about the manipulation done in the local hospital about the age of Radha and it was learnt that lady-doctor Mote had tried to show the age of Radha more than fifteen years when in fact her mother was married only fourteen or fifteen years back; and that many people had seen one person, who was himself a doctor, of the family of the petitioner Asgharali having some discussion with Dr. Mote during the period when Dr. Mote gave the girl's age as more than fifteen years. It was also mentioned that the Magistrate had charged Asgharali for offences under sections 363, 366 368, I. P. C.