H D RAJAH Vs. CHWITHERINGTON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents, the editor and printer of a magazine called "Review of India" have been ordered to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt of Court.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute.

(3.) An order was issued by the Presidency Magistrate, Madras, against one Harihar Dharma Rajah under Section 112, Criminal Procedure Code, to show cause why he should not be bound over under Section 110(f), Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Magistrate finding that Harihar Dharma Rajah was instilling revolutionary ideas in the minds of young persons, ordered him to find security and on his failure committed him to jail on 20 September, 1933. He appealed to this Court and in order not to undergo imprisonment he furnished the required security on 25 October, 1933. While the appeal was pending a paragraph appeared in the November number of the respondents review to the effect that a terrorist who was in jail in connexion with a scheme in Madras to send poisoned handkerchiefs to officials as Christmas presents had been released on bail presumably to enable him to proceed with his plan of preparing poisoned handkerchiefs. Neither in the findings nor in the evidence in the security proceedings is it suggested that Harihar Dharma Rajah was intending to send out poisoned handkerchiefs, and of course the suggestion that the Court had released him on bail in order to enable him to proceed with this plan is in the highest degree offensive. The respondents have filed affidavits tendering their sincere regret, and stating that they were not aware that an appeal was pending. It might have occurred to them that there would be no question of bail unless proceedings were pending, and, no matter what false opinion of the facts they may have conceived, there could be no possible justification for their saying that the Court had released the prisoner to enable him to prepare poisoned handkerchiefs.