BIJOYANANDA PATNAIK Vs. BALAKRUSHNA KAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE proceedings incontempt have been initiated at the instance of the petitioner Sri Bijoyananda Patnaik, who is the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Messrs. Eastern Mercantile Corporation, Ltd. Opposite Party 1 is the Editor of an Oriya newspaper called 'Matrubhumi' and opposite party2 is its printer and publisher. On 14 -6 -1952 the business premises of the petitioner were searched by an Inspector of the Special Police Establishment, Government of India, Delhi, under a warrant issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Cuttack, for the recovery of certain documents and letters exchanged between the petitioners and some overseas suppliers, in respect of a license issued by the Government of India for the import of bicycles intended for internal consumption within Orissa State. On 21 -6 -52 the petitioner moved this Court in Original Judicial Case No. 18 of 1952 praying for the issue of a rule on the Additional District Magistrate and the Inspector, Special Police Establishment, to show cause why the search should not be declared illegal and why the order of the Additional District Magistrate refusing to grant him copies of the warrant should not be set aside. On 27 -10 -52 the Court granted one of the prayers of the applicant and directed that he should be granted copies of certain documents which were, in the possession of the Additional District Magistrate. The other prayer of the petitioner, however, namely, for a declaration that the search was illegal was rejected on 2 -12 -1952 by a Bench of this Court.

(2.) IT is alleged that the opposite parties published certain articles in the daily and weekly issues of the Matrubhumi while proceedings were pending in this Court, vilifying the petitioner. These publications, it is contended, constitute gross contempt of Court. Altogether there were four articles published in the Matrubhumi two in the daily issues dated 17 -6 -52 and 13 -8 -52 and two in the weekly issues dated 21 -7 -52 and 1 -9 -52. The present petition was presented in Court on 24 -10 -52 and 20 -12 -52; this Court issued a rule nisi to show cause why the opposite parties should not be committed for contempt. These proceedings would, therefore, appear to be an off -shoot of Original judicial Case No. 18 of 1952 which had been filed by the petitioner and the impugned articles were published when the initiation of these proceedings was either imminent or pending in this Court.

(3.) THE second article, dated 21 -7 -52 appeared in the weekly edition of the Matrubhumi and purported to be the re -production of a statement published in another Oriya paper called 'Subrati'. The headline is: