ANANTA LAL SINGH Vs. ALFRED HENRY WATSON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by fourteen persons who are accused of various offences and are. being tried at Chittagong by Special Tribunal in respect thereof. Their application is for a writ of attachment and committal for contempt of Court against three respondents : Alfred Henry Watson, Anath Nath Patra and the Statesman Ltd. Respondent 1 appears to be the Editor of the Statesman newspaper and respondent 2 to be the printer and publisher thereof. The application is made in respect of certain comments which were published in the Statesman newspaper on 28 and 31 August of this year in the following circumstances : It appears that, in the course of an editorial published in the issue of 28 August 1930, this newspaper was engaged in certain controversy with another newspaper called Advance upon the question whether or not the throwing of bombs and other acts of violence charged against the accused petitioners in the case at Chittagong were connected with the Congress party and were part of the Congress activities. The newspaper Advance had apparently criticized the Statesman for suggesting that the Congress party could be identified in any way with these forms of activities. In the editorial complained of the Editor of the Statesman in arguing that the Congress party cannot be acquitted of complicity in or connivance at acts of violence and, after making certain observations in answer to the criticizm of the Advance newspaper, he goes on to refer to certain matters with which the present application is concerned.

(2.) It would appear that a learned Counsel of this Court, Mr. Sarat Chandra Bose, had some little time ago let it be known that he was withdrawing from practice at the Bar for a time in order that he might devote the whole of his energies to work for and in connexion with the Congress party, a political party of which, I understand, he is a member. The editorial, having referred to this circumstance, goes on to say: Does the defence of those changed with terrorist outrages at Chittagong or elsewhere fall within that category, namely, the category of Congress activities ? It further goes on to say.: When the self-appointed leader in Bengal of Congress interprets his vow of devoting himself wholly to Congress activities, as including the defence of those charged with outrages, the public is wholly justified in taking him at his word.

(3.) It appears that, in the course of this article the petitioners were referred to in passing as " the Ghittagong raiders. " But, in my opinion, although the word "alleged " is not inserted before this expression, too much cannot be made of that circumstance having regard to the context and the other passages in the article. On 31 August, by which time it would seem that Mr. Sarat Chandra Bose had objected before the Tribunal to the passage which I have read from the issue of 28th, a further reference was made in the columns of the newspaper to this matter. This reference notices that the word " raiders " had. been objected to and the paper goes on to say: We need not say that nothing was further from oar mind than to affect in any way the mind of the Tribunal trying these men, nor do we believe that it could be marred by the use of the word " raiders " without the adjective "alleged. " Where juries are not concerned, the Courts in England have been quick in refusing to admit that the mind of the Bench can be influenced by an accidental slip in a newspaper. We regret the slip nevertheless.