RAM PARIKCHAN PANDEY Vs. M S M SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite party No. 1, Pandit M. S. M. Sharma, was the Editor of the daily newspaper "The Searchlight" and opposite party No. 2, Awadhesh Kumar Tiwari is the printer and publisher of the said newspaper. On the 30th August, 1960, a rule was issued on them to show cause as to why they should not be committed for contempt of Court for: (a) publishing in the issue (Morning and Dak editions) of the Searchlight dated the 2nd August 1960, extracts from a petition under Section 110, Cr. P. C., filed before the District Magistrate of Darbhanga containing serious allegations against the character and the integrity of the petitioner Ram Parikchan Pandey; (b) publishing a photograph of the petitioner in the Morning edition of the Searchlight dated 2-8-1980; (c) publishing in the Dak edition of the same paper dated the 3rd August, 1960, a photograph of the petitioner under the caption; "Mr. Ramparichhan Pandey of Prihi under Khajouli P. S. Darbhanga against whom a petition has been filed before Mr. P. S. Appu, District Magistrate, Darbhanga for prosecuting him under Section 110, Cr. P. C., (bad livelihood)."; and (d) Commenting upon the allegations made in the said petition in the issue (Morning and Dak edition) of the Searchlight dated 2-8-1960, which prima facie tended to interfere with the course of justice in a pending proceeding against the petitioner and was likely to prejudice the public mind against him.

(2.) The events leading to the filing of the application by the petitioner for issuing a rule against the opposite party are these: On the 29th July, 1960, an unstamped petition signed by 205 persons who were inhabitants of villages under Khajauli and Madhubani Police stations in the District of Darbhanga was filed before the District Magistrate of Darbhanga containing serious allegations against Ramparichhan Pandey (the present petitioner). It was alleged that Ramparichhan Pandey was a receiver of stolen properties, he harboured thieves and criminals, took part in the concealment and disposal of stolen properties, and abetted the commission of the offences of kidnapping, abduction, extortion, cheating and mischief. Some of the allegations made against him can be summarised thus: (a) Ramparichhan Pandey had no ostensible means of livelihood and his presence in that locality was a constant source of terror and he adopted illegal means for maintaining himself and his dependents; (b) he extorted money from time to time from teachers, contractors and litigants, giving them the assurance that he would make recommendations on their behalf to the high dignitaries and Government officers of various departments; (c) he extorted a sum of Rs. 50 from Jawahar Lal Rai, Primary School teacher, for getting him transferred from Dulha Middle School to Ekma Upper Primary School. Similarly, he extorted specific sums from Kameshwar Choudhary, teacher, Gangadhar Yadav, Maulvi Manaur Khan, Bishwanath Jha, Umakant Chaudhary, Jogendra Singh and Mangal Chaudhary for securing orders from various authorities in their favour; (d) He was associated with criminals and dacoits and was in the habit of extorting money by falsely implicating rich and innocent persons; (e) He kidnapped the minor daughter of Ghutbar Jadav and subsequently sold her for Rs. 1000 to one Kailash Singh. Similarly, he kidnapped two other girls and sold them for Rs. 1600 and Rs. 1000, respectively to certain persons of village Madhurapur under Teghra police station; (f) Prior to the formation of the popular ministry he hardly possessed 2 to 3 bighas of land, but by reason of his association with persons highly placed he amassed a fortune having landed property worth about Rs. 50,000 without there being any ostensible means of income. (g) He, cheated Ganga Rai, Prabhanandan Rai and various other persons on the pretext of getting some favours for them from one official or the Other; (h) The hunger-stricken and unemployed person fell in his clutches and he took money from certain persons named in that application on the pretext of securing employment; (i) He was an ex-convict and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for obstructing a public officer in the discharge of his duties and the conviction was upheld by the appellate Court; (j) About five years ago the Inspector of police, Khajouli Circle, recommended for drawing up a proceeding under Section 110, Cr. P. C., against him, but the matter was ultimately dropped; (k) He was in the habit of travelling without ticket in trains and about four years ago he was convicted by the Railway Magistrate for doing so; (l) The signatories to that petition apprehended danger to themselves and their witnesses in the event of Ramparichhan Pandey becoming aware of the contents of that petition which was filed against him. A prayer was made in that petition to take action against Ramparichhan Pandey in accordance with law under Section 110, Cr. P. C., and other existing laws and to keep him in custody during the period of investigation. The District magistrate treated this application as confidential and the same day he directed the Superintendent of Police, Darbhanga to get an inquiry made into those allegations by an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of police.

(3.) The news about the filing of this petition was published on the first page of the issue (Dak edition) of 'The Searchlight' dated the 2nd August, 1960, with bold headlines in the following manner: