DURGA ORAON Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant respondent no.21 of the writ petition in I.A. No. 109 of 2012, Who is a former Chief Minister of the State of Jharkhand and has been lodged in jail since November, 2009 after investigation by C.B.I., and Enforcement Directorate(E.D.) Learned counsel for the applicant/respondent no.21 submitted LA. No. 109 of 2012 requesting this Court to suo -motu take cognizance of the contempt of Court committed by former M.L.A., Mr. Saryu Roy, who is the author of the book namely "Madhu Kora Loot Raj" which was published and released on 15.01.2012, on the ground that in a subjudice matter, that too of sensitive nature wherein the said respondent is behind the bar, the said book has been published by Mr. Saryu Roy, to interfere in the process of the Court as well as to prejudice the defence of the respondent no.21 and therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of M.P. Lohia Vrs. State of W.B. and another, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 686 wherein such practice of publishing article in the newspaper with respect to pending criminal case has been deprecated and caution was issued to the publisher, editor and journalist, who were responsible for such article, against indulging in such trial by media when the matter was subjudice. The applicant/respondent no.21 also prayed for interim order restraining the author publisher from releasing the book titled "Madhu Kora Loot Raj" However the said book has now been released and therefore. learned counsel for the application/respondent no.21 prayed that now the circulation of the book may be stopped.

(2.) WE have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant/respondent no.21 and perused the facts stated in the said interlocutory application. The applicant has submitted this application but has not annexed a copy of the said book which may not be in the possession of the applicant because it was not released when this application was submitted. However, now the said book has been released and yet a copy of the said book has not been placed on record by the applicant/respondent no.21.

(3.) AT this juncture, we may point out here that in the application submitted by respondent no. 21, no factual foundation has been laid down to show that how publishing of said book will affect the fair trial or investigation or will influence the witness. Therefore, in each and every case for each and every publication, such type of objection cannot be sustained. We may further point out that it is not a case of media trial which normally can be done by even one newspaper or one electronic media or may be large number of newspapers and large number of news channels by repeated programmes and articles, shown or published by taking help from one clue or other clues, based on rum ours, may be a case where such practice can be deprecated in view of the fact that there may not be complete record of such material with the person and he may not know from which of the repeated articles or news items, one witness may have been influenced. Here in this case, it is said that a book has been published and is, obviously put for sale on price which will be purchased by a class of person who can form his own opinion and such publications are not casual publications. In present case publication is not an act of repetition but is only an opinion of the author of the said book given in one book.