CROWN Vs. BRISH BHAN AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUB -Inspector Kuldip Singh, Kotwal of Malerkotla was attacked and killed at Malerkotla town on 2nd Har, 2006 corresponding to 15th June, 1949. The first information report at the police station was lodged at 9 A.M. and in the course of investigation that was taken in hand at once a number of persons were arrested. A report regarding the incident and various matters connected therewith made by Shri Brish Bhan was published in the issue of the "Tribune" Ambala dated 23rd June 1949 and a translation of the report appeared in the issue of the Daily Vir Bharat dated 26th June 1949 printed at Delhi. The Malwa Gazette, a weekly Urdu paper printed at Patiala, published 6 articles relating to the same incident, three in its issue of 11th Har 2006 (24th June 1949) and two in that of 19th Har, 2006 (2nd July 1949). The publication of the report and the articles mentioned above have given rise to the following three petitions for contempt of court made by the Government Advocate under Section 3, Patiala Contempt of Courts Act: (i) criminal Miscellaneous No. 64 of 2006, against Mr. Brish Bhan; (ii) Criminal Miscellaneous No. 66 of 2006 against Dr. T.G and Goswami Editor, Printer and Publisher of Malwa. Gazette, and (iii) Criminal Miscellaneous No. 67 of 2006 against Mr. J. Natrajan, Editor and L. Ganpat Rai, Printer and Publisher respectively of the Tribune and Mr. Hardyal Shad, Editor and Mr. Chaman Lal Kutial, Printer and Publisher of Vir Bharat.

(2.) AS regards Shri Brish Bhan's report, it was alleged by the Petitioner that it was intended to prejudice the fair trial of the case relating to the Kotwal's murder before a Court or, at any rate, it had the tendency to interfere with due course of justice. As regards the articles published in the Malwa Gazette, the Petitioner's position was that the writer had made an attempt therein to defend the citizens of Malerkotla and the parsons arrested and had made serious insinuations against the administration, that the substance of the articles left no room for doubt that the same were calculated to influence the minds of not only the prosecution witnesses, but also the general public and that they were prejudicial to the final trial of the case.

(3.) IN the petition against Shri Brish Bhan, it was mentioned that it was the result of a sort of private inquiry that he conducted on the spot. Shri Brish Bhan in his written statement admitted having made the inquiry and published the report. His defence was that he did so as a part of his public duty. This is what he said in paragraph 3 of his written statement: