JUDGMENT Fletcher, J. - This is a Rule calling on the printer, publisher, and editor of the newspaper called the Bengalee to show cause why they should not be committed to the custody of the Superintendent of the Presidency Jail for contempt of Court for issuing an article entitled " Mr. Weston and the Procedure in Conspiracy Cases " in the issue of the Bengalee of the 30th April last. The editor of the Bengalee, Babu Surendra Nath Banerjea, appears to show cause by Mr. Chaudhuri, who also appears, I understand, for the printer and publisher. The first point that Mr. Chaudhuri has taken is that the rule is technically wrong because it does not name the printer, publisher and editor of the Bengalee by name. Now these are proceedings in contempt, and therefore of a quasi-criminal character and all the rules of Court must be observed in strictness. But Mr. Chaudhuri says that he is quite willing that the matter should now be dealt with, to save the issue of a further rule, as the point is one of technicality only, and he has read an affidavit of Babu Surendra Nath Banerjea which sets forth how his article came to be published in the Bengalee. There can be no doubt, in my opinion, that the article does constitute contempt of Court. It does reflect upon a witness-not only a witness but also a party-during his cross-examination in this Court. But the reasons how that came to be in the Bengalee have been set forth in the affidavit of Babu Surendra Nath Banerjea. It appears that the supervision of the editor, printer and publisher was not so strict as it should ordinarily be, owing to the removal of the Bengalee press to the new premises. Of course in law that is no sufficient answer to a rule of this nature. Still it goes to show the bond fides of the parties. This article apparently got into the Bengalee without the knowledge of the persons who have the control of the paper. They having expressed their regret for having published it, it seems to me that on that ground no further proceedings need be taken against the printer, publisher and editor. The only question is-can I in this rule give the applicant the costs of the rule ? I am afraid I cannot. The rule ought, if Mr. They having expressed their regret for having published it, it seems to me that on that ground no further proceedings need be taken against the printer, publisher and editor. The only question is-can I in this rule give the applicant the costs of the rule ? I am afraid I cannot. The rule ought, if Mr. Chaudhuri pressed for it, to be discharged because the names of the printer, publisher and editor are not contained therein. Obviously it is the duty of a party applying for a rule to supply these names to the Court; it would be intolerable that the Court should of itself find out the names of parties to rules. A case where the Court of its own motion calls before it the printer and publisher and editor of a newspaper to explain why they published a certain article stands obviously on a different footing to the present. In strictness therefore Mr. Chaudhuri would be entitled to have the present rule discharged as a matter of course. As he is not anxious that that course should be taken in order to save a further rule being issued on him, I think, having regard to the affidavit brought before the Court on behalf of Babu Surendra Nath Banerjea, it is sufficient in this case if I discharge the rule without costs. After the rule against the Bengalee was discharged, the rule issued against the editor, printer and publisher of the Amrita Bazar Patrika for a similar contempt came up for hearing. It related to the following editorial paragraph in the Amtita Bazar Patrika of the 29th April 1911 : In the course of Mr. Weston's cross-examination on Thursday last Mr. K.B. Dutt, the Plaintiff's Counsel, sought to throw some light on a point which has been a puzzle to the Indian public. Well, Mr. Dutt tried to ascertain whether or not several persons were first arrested and then began a hunt for evidence to incriminate them in the meshes of the law. Here is the report : Witness (Mr. Weston) was asked whether his idea was that in a case of this nature men should first be arrested, put in hajut and then evidence against them should be collected? That is correct, except that not only would one collect evidence against them but enquire if there was evidence against them or for them. Weston) was asked whether his idea was that in a case of this nature men should first be arrested, put in hajut and then evidence against them should be collected? That is correct, except that not only would one collect evidence against them but enquire if there was evidence against them or for them. And that according to your opinion must be done after putting the men in "hajut" ? In a case of this nature, yes. And that is why you caused Upendra Maity, the Raja of Narajole, Abinash Mitter, Gopal Chunder Banerjee, Peary Mohun Das and others to be arrested first and then you went on collecting evidence against them? Peary Mohun Das was not arrested until a dangerous bomb was found in his house. The "onus" lay upon him to account for it. With respect to the other four that is my reason. So Mr. Weston admitted, so to say, that such was his idea. It is to be hoped that Mr. Weston's admission would be taken due note of by the Legislature as also by the responsible rulers of the land. 2. Mr. Walter Gregory, representing Mr. Weston, applied on 3rd May for the issue of a rule for contempt against the editor, printer and publisher of the Amrita Bazar Patrika. A rule was ordered by the Court to be issued as. in the case of the Bengalee. On the rule coming up for hearing, 3. Mr. A. Chaudhuri, with Mr. J.N. Roy and Mr. C.C. Ghose, appeared to show cause and took the objection that the rule had not been properly served as was stated in the affidavit. 4. Mr. Chaudhuri asked that the rule be discharged on the ground of illegality. 5. The Advocate-General said that if his Lordship held that this rule was illegal in not having been served on a specific individual, his Lordship was free to take any course he thought proper. But if his Lordship discharged the rule on that ground, then he would ask his Lordship to consider the advisibility of the matter and grant a fresh rule. If there was a proper and adequate expression of apology in this case the matter would no doubt have ended. He had seen no affidavit up to the present moment. Mr. Justice Fletcher 6. If you wish to read the affidavit I must give you an opportunity of doing so. If there was a proper and adequate expression of apology in this case the matter would no doubt have ended. He had seen no affidavit up to the present moment. Mr. Justice Fletcher 6. If you wish to read the affidavit I must give you an opportunity of doing so. The matter will stand over till to-morrow morning to give the Advocate-General an opportunity of reading the affidavit. Is it worth while your having a fresh rule in this case, Mr. Chaudhuri ? I don't know whether you have expressed your regret. Mr. Chaudhuri 7. I have I say that this does not amount to contempt. That is a substantial point which I wish to discuss. If your Lordship comes to the conclusion that it is contempt, then my clients say that they did not intend it. Mr. Justice Fletcher 8. That is a halfhearted apology. 9. The Advocate-General.-If the publisher, printer, and editor of the Amrita Bazar Patrika think proper even at this late stage to express publicly through their Counsel their regret at this publication and their clear desire that they never intended to commit a contempt of your Lordship's Court, the matter will end at this stage. 10. Mr. Chaudhuri.-I can say without any hesitation that no contempt was ever intended. 11. Mr. Justice Fletcher- It seems to me that was an improper article which Mr. Gregory read. Any comment on Mr. Weston's conduct while he was under examination is improper. It seems to me quite obvious that the article is a contempt. 12. Mr. Chaudhuri.-I regret on behalf of my clients that anything which was written should be liable to the interpretation that we committed a contempt of Court. I can assure your Lordship that there was no such intention and it was under that belief that it was written. I express my regret on behalf of the editor, printer and publisher to your Lordship. 13. Mr. Justice Fletcher- Do you wish to say anything, Mr. Advocate-General ? I understand Mr. Chaudhuri expresses his regret at the article which appeared in the Amrita Bazar Patrika. Are you willing to accept as far as Mr. Weston is concerned the expression of regret that Mr. Chaudhuri has given ? 14. The Advocate-General.-If no justification is attempted. 15. Mr. Chaudhuri.-No I do not justify. Mr. Advocate-General ? I understand Mr. Chaudhuri expresses his regret at the article which appeared in the Amrita Bazar Patrika. Are you willing to accept as far as Mr. Weston is concerned the expression of regret that Mr. Chaudhuri has given ? 14. The Advocate-General.-If no justification is attempted. 15. Mr. Chaudhuri.-No I do not justify. Mr. Justice Fletcher thereupon delivered the following Judgment : This is a similar rule calling upon the printer, publisher and editor of the Amrita Bazar Patrika with reference to a similar article which appeared in the issue of that paper on the 29th April. Mr. Chaudhuri has now expressed the regret of the printer, publisher and editor for the article which reflected on Mr. Weston. There seems to me no doubt that an article of this nature, reflecting on the party to a suit, more especially while a witness under cross-examination, is a contempt of the Court. That a party or witness should be held up in a public newspaper during the proceedings in Court either to public contempt or to have his conduct criticised, I think, does constitute contempt of Court. Mr. Chaudhuri has very properly expressed regret on behalf of the printer, publisher and editor of the newspaper for their contempt. It seems to me on that footing that no further steps be taken on this rule. The only question is as to the question of costs. The rule stands on the same basis as the other rule. Therefore the rule is discharged without any order as to costs.