(1.) This is an application made on behalf of Bibhabati Debi who is one of the appellants in the appeal now pending before this Court or rather not only pending but proceeding day by day before this Court. The application is also supported by or on behalf of the respondents in the appeal and in effect, therefore, it is a joint application by the principal parties in the appeal We were asked to issue a rule calling upon one Nagendra Nath Das to show cause why he should not be dealt with by the Court for a contempt constituted by or contained in a pamphlet printed in the Bengali language, the title of which rendered into English is Fight between the Rani and the Sannyasi (new series). The pamphlet relates to what is commonly called the Bhowal Raj case and upon the outside page or cover of the pamphlet there appears a portrait of the plaintiff in that case in the dress of the Second Kumar of Bhowal. That portrait is one of the actual exhibits in the case being Ex. 58. The pamphlet is, beyond all question defamatory both of Bibhabati Debi and her brother Satya. I think I should not be overstating the matter to say that it is both disgraceful and dastardly. Our task in adjudicating on this matter is rendered easier from one point of view by the fact that Nagendra Nath Das is not only himself present in Court but is represented by an advocate, Mr. Janah, and Mr. Janah stated at the outset of the hearing that his client pleaded guilty to the charge brought against him in these proceedings. He clearly and frankly admitted on behalf of the respondent that the pamphlet complained of is undoubtedly a contempt of Court. We have therefore not to consider in any detail the contents of this document which may be described as being in the highest degree scurrilous and contemptible. If however, this publication had morely amounted to a libel upon Bibhabati and her brother Satya, it might have been possible to argue that it was not a matter which could be dealt with in proceedings for contempt of Court and that the persons aggrieved ought to be left to pursue the appropriate remedy in another place. But this publication contains statements and inuendoes which undoubtedly transcend the character of a libel only. Mr. Chuckerbutty, to whom we are indebted for his very clear and able argument before us, contended, and in our opinion rightly, that this pamphlet comes within the definition of "contempt of Court" on three grounds. First of all, it assumes the truth of certain facts which are connected directly or indirectly with the matters under consideration and awaiting decision in the appeal itself. Secondly, the document contains reflections of the gravest possible nature upon the conduct and the character of certain of the persons in the appeal, viz. Bibhabati Debi herself and her brother Satya who, though not technically party, is a person whose name figures very largely throughout the proceedings. Lastly, the pamphlet purports to predict that the appellants will be or are likely to be successful in the appeal and adds the comment in effect that if they are successful, law and justice will be defeated. These are the points put forward by Mr. Chuckerbutty.
(2.) We have been taken through the pamphlet and we have considered it carefully from the beginning to the end and we have no doubt whatever that the first part of it and the last part of it, that is to say the part which is in a sort of doggerel verse and the part which is in the blank verse tooth contain statements which entirely justify the propositions put forward by Mr. Chuckerbutty. We are of opinion that this matter falls within the ambit of the classic definition of "contempt of Court" which is contained in the judgment of Lord Hard-wicke (who was then the Lord Chancellor of England) in St. james Evening Post Case: Roach V/s. Garvan (1742) 2 Atk 469 decided in the year 1742. The passage is this: There are three different sorts of contempt: one kind of contempt is scandalizing the Court Itself. There may be likewise a contempt of this Court, 1n abusing parties who are concerned in causes here. There may be also a contempt of this Court in prejudicing mankind against persons before the cause is heard.
(3.) And then follows this pregnant observation: There cannot be anything of greater consequence than to keep the streams of justice clear and pure, that parties may proceed with safety both to themselves and their characters.