ROOP CHAND SHARMA Vs. AVTAR SINGH BRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Roop Chand Sharma, resident of Faridabad, District Gurgaon, has put in this petition under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, alleging that on the 29th June 1960 there occurred an incident at Faridabad as a result of which two members of the public and one member of the hospital staff were killed by police firing and an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was also killed, that a case was registered by the local police for theft, rioting and murder against the petitioner and other members of the public on that very day, that the respondent issued a press note which was published in 'The Tribune' dated the 2nd July 1960 and other newspapers having wide circulation in the State of Punjab, giving a one-sided and coloured version of the incident, its background and its details, that the press note issued by the respondent is calculated to interfere with the due course of justice and to prejudice mankind against the petitioner and his co-accused, and that the respondent at the time of issuing the press note knew or should have known that criminal proceedings against the petitioner and his co-accused were imminent. It is, therefore, alleged that the respondent by issuing the press note in question has committed serious contempt of Court, and is prayed that proceedings under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, be taken against the respondent and he be suitably punished. A copy of the press note in question has also been annexed to the petition.

(2.) Unfortunately the words "Contempt of Court" have not been defined in the Act itself. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the press note issued by the respondent calculated to interfere with the due course of justice and to prejudice mankind against the petitioner and his co-accused, and also that at the time the respondent issued the press note he should have known that criminal proceedings against the petitioner and his co-accused were imminent and has thus committed contempt of Court. In support of his contention he has cited In re, Subrahmanyan, Editor Tribune, AIR 1943 Lah 329 (FB), State v. Bherulal, AIR 1954 Madh-B S6, State v. Editor Printer and Publisher of Matrubhumi, (S) AIR 1955 Orissa 36 and Leo Roy v. R. Prasad, 1958-60 Pun LR 255: (AIR 1958 Punj 377).

(3.) In AIR 1943 Lah 329 (FB), what is contempt of Court has been described at some length. In this authority it was observed as under: