LEGAL REMEMBRANCER Vs. BIBHUTI BHUSAN DAS GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case was started on an application of the Legal Remembrancer, Bihar, representing the State of Bihar for issue of notice on the opposite party to show cause why they should not be proceeded against for contempt of court.

(2.) The events leading to the filing of the present application may shortly be stated as follows. On the 18th of January, 1953, the Sub-Inspector of Police in charge of Bandwan Police Station, in the District of Manbhum, made a report to the sub-divisional Magistrate of Puru-lia to the effect that there was likelihood of a breach of the peace between two. groups of people in Bandwan over the staging of a drama called "Desher Dabi" on the 23rd of January, 1953, by one of the groups. The police officer prayed for the issue of a notice under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, against both the parties. Acting on the aforesaid report of the police officer, the sub-divisional Magistrate of Purulia passed an order under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, and issued notices against both the parties named in the report cot to stage the drama or to do any act likely to cause a breach of the peace and to show cause, if any, on the 28th of January, 1953. In spite of the service of the notice under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, the drama was staged at the premises of the Rishi Niba-ran Chandra Vidyapith on the 23rd of January, 1953. On the 26th of January, 1953, an article was published in a weekly Bengali newspaper called "The Mukti" in its issue dated the 26th of January, 1953, under the head line : "The Incident of Section 144 promulgation in Band-wan : the newest sample of Governmental highhandedness". The petitioner has attached a copy of the article as annexure A and an English translation thereof as annexure B to the petition. The opposite party No. 1, Sri Bibhuti Bhusan Das Gupta, is the editor of the newspaper and opposite party No. 2, Sri Ramchan-dra Adhikary is its printer and publisher. The article in question was published over the name of Sri Arun Chandra Ghosh, opposite party No. 3. According to the petitioner, the opposite party are guilty of contempt of court on the ground of their having published the article in question during the continuance of the proceeding under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, and on the ground of their having scandalised the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Purulia in particular and the magistracy of that district in general by calling them conspirators with the police and the ministry, and further on the ground of their having interfered with the due course of justice and proper administration of law. Ac-carding to the petitioner, the opposite party are guilty of contempt of court of a grave nature.

(3.) The opposite party have appeared and filed three sets of written statements. Opposite party 1 and 2 have accepted the responsibility for publishing and printing the article in question. They have also averred that in case it be found that they had committed contempt of court by publishing or printing the article they will deem it a privilege to suffer any punishment that may be inflicted on them for the same. Opposite party No. 3, Sri Arun Chandra Ghosh, has admitted to have written the article in question. In paragraph 6 of his written statement he has pleaded: "That the article in question did not tend to and could not have tended to pollute "the fountain of Justice" "proper administration of law" nor even calculated to do either of them. On the contrary the object of the article was to protect the fountain of justice from being polluted by the local police and magistracy acting in league and with the active support and connivance of the State Government and its high officials and to keep the administration of justice free from unclean politics which was invading the sacred citadel of justice and jeopardising the civil rights of the people of Manbhum." In paragraphs 12 and 13 of his written statement he further averred that the magistracy in Purulia was in league with the local police. Paragraph 13 of the written statement runs thus: