JUDGMENT Thomas, C.J. and Radha Krishna, J. - Lala Radha Krishna filed a complaint against Bansidhar and four others under Sections 447 and 426 I. P. C which is pending before a Bench of Honorary Magistrates at Lucknow. 2. Lala Radha Krishna on the 23rd November, 1939, presented an application before the Bench concerned, asking that the eight persons named in the application be committed for contempt of Court and he prayed that his application be forwarded to this Court through the District Magistrate for action under the Contempt of Courts Act. The District Magistrate on the 9th January, 1940, forwarded Lala Radha Krishna's application to this - Court and a notice was issued against (1) Raja Ram, (2) Bansidhar, (3) Misri Lal Pradhan, (4) Pt. Rajaram Pradhan, (5) Moolchand. Sharma, (6) Narain Pershad Vaidya, (7) Bharat Pershad Shukla and (8) Satya Kumar to show cause why action should not be taken against them for contempt of Court. 3. All the eight persons have tendered apology in the following terms:- That whatever the petitioners did or said in the meeting held on 14th November, 19:19, was done in absolute ignorance and with no intention to commit any contempt of Court. That the above named petitioners are genuinely sorry for their action at the meeting held on 14th November 19X9, and they further express their regret for the same. That they further tender their unqualified apology for whatever they said or did in the said meeting. That they throw themselves at your Lordships mercy, and assure your Lordships that they will never act like this in future. 4. It appears that while the case was proceeding in the Court of the Bench Magistrates the opposite-parties called a meeting and protested against the action of Lala Radha Krishna for filing the complaint under Sections 447 and 426 I.P.C. The opposite-parties got a leaflet printed and freely distributed it. We quote a few passages from the leaflet The worshippers of Shiva Wake up. Case against Hindu office bearers. A big meeting of the Hindus. May it be known to all Hindu Brethren the deeds of Messrs. We quote a few passages from the leaflet The worshippers of Shiva Wake up. Case against Hindu office bearers. A big meeting of the Hindus. May it be known to all Hindu Brethren the deeds of Messrs. Lala Radha Krishna Sri Krishna Agarwal of Chowk Lucknow; they did not content themselves only with putting obstacles in the way of demarcating and making the; Tank of Shree Mahabirjee but they gave an exhibition of their religious faith on the temple of Mahadeoji situate on Kursi Road Mahabirganj (Aliganj) Lucknow and the said Lala Sahebs gave a proof of their truth and religiousness by filing a criminal case against some devotees because some flower plants were planted adjacent to the temple of Shivajee.... Hence to oppose this it has been decided to' hold a meeting on November 14, 1939...at 5-30 p. M. near the temple of Mahabirjee on the same temple of Shivajee. Consequently the Hindu public is requested to give a proof of their devotion to Lord Shiva, pure through body and mind and money, by attending the meeting at the appointed time and to safeguard Hinduism". "Note, All the Hindu and Aryasamajist associations are requested to co-operate in this by taking part in the meeting in the largest number possible. "Maya Publishing House Lucknow." 5. It is admitted before us that the said leaflet was printed at the Maya Publishing House by Pt. Moolchand Sharma and it was distributed by Raja Ram Pradhan and several Others. 6. A meeting was held on the date fixed under the Presidentship of Pt. Narain Pershad Vaidya arid it was attended by a large number of people and speeches were made. 7. The learned Counsel oil behalf of the applicant informed us that one Ram Charan Lal Patwari was examined on his behalf in the Court of the Bench Magistrates and at this meeting a resolution was passed against him for giving evidence in favour of the applicant. It was urged that the intention of the opposite-parties in calling this public meeting was to create agitation against the applicant by misstating facts, and by rousing the religious susceptibilities of the Hindus at large and that open threats were uttered against the applicant at the meeting. This was all done in order to influence the decision of the criminal case pending in the Court of the Bench of Honorary Magistrates. 8. This was all done in order to influence the decision of the criminal case pending in the Court of the Bench of Honorary Magistrates. 8. In view of the fact that the opposite-parties have tendered an unqualified apology we have not thought it fit to ask the applicant to produce oral evidence in order to substantiate certain questions of fact. 9. The question in all cases of comment on pending proceedings is not whether the publication does interfere, but whether it tends to interfere with the due course of justice, and on the same principle it is a contempt of Court to make a speech tending to influence the result of a pending trial whether civil or criminal, or to deliver a speech at a meeting. 10. In the case of The Queen v. Thomas Castro (1873) 9 Q.B. 219, it was held that it is contempt of Court to address public meetings, alleging that the defendant is not guilty, and that there is a conspiracy against the defendant, and that he cannot have a fair trial. 11. The criminal case, as we have said, was pending, and there is no doubt in our mind that the object of the opposite-parties in calling this public meeting was to influence the decision of the Criminal Court, prevent witnesses from giving evidence and to bring pressure V on the complainant to withdraw his complaint. 12. We therefore convict the opposite-parties for contempt of Court in respect of the Court of the Bench of Honorary Magistrates at Lucknow. 13. The question for consideration is whether we should act under the first proviso to Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act which provides that "the accused may be discharged and the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made by it to the satisfaction of the Court" or whether we should compel the opposite-parties to purge their contempt by payment of a fine or undergoing of a sentence of imprisonment. 14. After carefully considering the facts and circumstances of the case we convict (1) Raja Ram, (2) Bansidhar (3) Misra Lal Pradhan, (4) Pt. 14. After carefully considering the facts and circumstances of the case we convict (1) Raja Ram, (2) Bansidhar (3) Misra Lal Pradhan, (4) Pt. Rajaram Pradhan, (5) Moolchand Sharma, (6) Narain Pershad Vaidya, (7) Bharat Prasad and (8) Satya Kumar for the contempt of Court with respect to the Court of the Bench of Honorary Magistrates of Lucknow, but discharge them as they have tendered an unqualified apology and given an assurance that in future they will not commit such an offence. But we think it is a fit case in which the opposite-parties should be made to pay the costs which have been incurred by the applicant in this Court. The learned Counsel for the applicant has filed a certificate for Rs. 50 and there are some miscellaneous expenses. We therefore order that each of the opposite-parties will pay to the applicant Rs. 10 within two weeks. 15. Ordered accordingly.