JUDGMENT : SHINDE, J. 1. This is an appln. by Sunnulal to commit Shree Yeshwantsing Kushavaha, Shree Hariharniwas Dwivedi, editors of the newspaper Nava Prabhat and Shree Vanmali Dwivedi printer of the said paper for oontempt of Ct. The petn. states that Cri Case No. 215 of 1950 under S. 3, Gambling Act, is pending against the petnr. in the Ct. of the Addl. City Mag. of Lashkar. The non - Appct. published a news item on page 4 cols 2 and 3 in the isaue of the Nava Prabhat dated 26-5-1950. The publication of the news is prejudicial to the interest of the petnr. and is calculated to interfere with the course of justice. This act of the non - Appcts. amounts to a contempt of Ct. 2. The non - Appcts. in their reply state that Nava Prabhat has always borne in mind that due courtesy should be shown to the Ct. and its dignity be maintained, that in publishing the news they never intended to show the slightest disrespect to the Ct. and that the news has been published purely in the interest of public welfare. The reply further states that if the Ct. considers that the news in any way causes disrespect to the Ct. they express regret and tender apology for the same. 2a. Mr. Inamdar, the learned counsel for the petnr. contends that the news appearing in the issue of Nava Prabhat dated 26-5-1950 amounts to contempt of Gt. in so far as it tends to interfere with the due course of justice in a pending case. He also argues that the motive of the non - Appcts. is immaterial. If the publication tends to prejudice a fair trial the author would be guilty of contempt of Ct. even though he did not intend to prejudice the case. 3. Before proceeding to determine whether the act of the opponents amounts to a contempt of Ct. or not, it is necessary to examine the law which governs the subject-matter. The gravamen of the offence of contempt of Ct. is any interference or the likelihood of interference with the course of justice. If the flow of the stream of justice is obstructed for any reason, that obstruction whether resulting from a proper motive or from indifference or from disregard of the consequences or from accidental omission, cannot be excused. The gravamen of the offence of contempt of Ct. is any interference or the likelihood of interference with the course of justice. If the flow of the stream of justice is obstructed for any reason, that obstruction whether resulting from a proper motive or from indifference or from disregard of the consequences or from accidental omission, cannot be excused. Motive of the contemner cannot be considered in determining his guilt. The Law of Contempt by Mr. Tekchand enumerates the principles underlying the law of contempt qua press publications as follows: (1) It is a contempt of Ct. to scandalise the Ct. or offend against the dignity of a Judge by attributing to him dishonesty or impropriety or incompetence, regardless of the fact whether the case with reference in which the offending remarks were made is pending to the Ct. or has been decided. (2) It is a contempt of Ct. to publish an article in a newspaper commenting on the proceedings of a pending criminal case or a civil suit, reflecting on the Judge, jury, the parties, their witnesses or counsel appearing in the case. It is immaterial whether the remarks are made with reference to a trial actually proceeding, or with reference to a trial which is yet to proceed, provided that the comment has a tendency to prejudice the fair trial or influence the decision. (3) It is a contempt of Ct. to publish any matter affecting the proceedings of a pending case which has a tendency to prejudice the public for, or against a party, before the cause is finally heard. It is not necessary to prove that a Judge or jury will be prejudiced. (Vide Law of Contempt by Mr. Tekchand, 2nd Edn., p. 249.") 4. These principles have been set out by the Lahore H. C. in the case of Emperor v. Mahashe Khushal Chand, reported in a. I. R. (32) 1945 Lah 206 : (47 Cr. L. J. 115). Reference to these principles has also been made in Emperor v. Marmaduke Pickthall, a.i.R. (10) 1923 Bom. 8: (24 Cr. L. J. 289) and Emperor v. Murli Manohar Prasad, 8 Pat. 323 : (a. I. R. (16) 1929 Pat. 72 : 30 Cr. L. J. 741 F.B.). 5. Intention of the author cannot be considered in determining his guilt. The question to consider in such cases is what is the effect of the publication. 8: (24 Cr. L. J. 289) and Emperor v. Murli Manohar Prasad, 8 Pat. 323 : (a. I. R. (16) 1929 Pat. 72 : 30 Cr. L. J. 741 F.B.). 5. Intention of the author cannot be considered in determining his guilt. The question to consider in such cases is what is the effect of the publication. If it has a tendency to obstruct or interfere with the due and proper course of administration of justice the author will be guilty of contempt (vide Emperor v. Khushal Chand, a. I. R. (32) 1945 Lah. 206 : (47 Cr. L. J. 115); Hargowandas v. Chimanlal. a. I. R. (29) 1942 Bom. 86 : (43 Cr. L. J. 583) ; Demibai v. Rawji, a. I. R. (24) 1937 Bom. 305 : (38 Cr. L. J. 942) and Parshuram v. Emperor, A. I. R. (32) 1945 P. C. 134 : (I. L. R. (1945) Bom. 950). 6. Before a person can be committed for contempt the Ct. has to be satisfied with regard to the following matters: (a) that something has been published which either is clearly intended, or at least is calculated to prejudice a trial which is pending; (b) that the offending matter was published with the knowledge of the pending cause, or with the knowledge that the cause was imminent; (c) that the matter published tended substantially to interfere with the due course of justice or was calculated substantially to create prejudice in the public mind; vide Emperor v. Khushal Chand, A. I. R. (32) 1945 Lah. 206 : (47 Cr. L. J. 115). 7. I now proceed to examine the publication in dispute in the light of the legal principles expounded above. The publication is reproduced here in ex tenso : From this reproduction it is clear that news item with regard to the arrest of gamblers has been published. The head line suggests that a notorious gang of gamblers has been arrested. The news also suggested that Sunnulal has been keeping a gaming house for nearly 10 years. The second paragraph of the news also suggests that some police officers are in league with the gamblers. In R. v. Parke, (1903 ) 2 K. B. 432 : (72 L. J. K. B. 839), where a publisher published in a newspaper matter relating to the past life of the accused. Wills J. observed as follows : " . . The second paragraph of the news also suggests that some police officers are in league with the gamblers. In R. v. Parke, (1903 ) 2 K. B. 432 : (72 L. J. K. B. 839), where a publisher published in a newspaper matter relating to the past life of the accused. Wills J. observed as follows : " . . . . The reason why the publication of articles like those with which we have to deal Is treated as a contempt of Ct. is because their tendency, and some times their object is to deprive the Ct. of the power of doing that which is the end for which it exists, namely, to administer justice duly, impartially and with reference solely to the facts judicially brought before it. Their tendency is to reduce the Court which has to try the case to impotence, so far as the effectual elimination of prejudice and prepossession is concerned." 8. This dictum was followed in Emperor v. Khushalchand, reported in a. I. r. (32) 1945 Lah. 206 : (47 cr. L. J. 115). Similar view was taken in In re Vidyasagar Kapur, a. I. R. (25) 1938 Lah. 815 : (40 Cr. L. J. 156). In Sathappa Chettiar v. C. Bamchandra Naidu, (a.i.R. (19) 1932 Mad. 26 : 33 Cr. L. J. 270), where the opposite party had published the following head lines : "Sathappa Chettiar in trouble; Police search at Tiruppar ; Thousands of Rupees missing ; Cotton Mills in danger." Their Lordships of the Madras H. C. held that the conduct of the opposite party in publishing these misleading head lines in the pending case cannot be said to be not calculated to produce an atmosphere of prejudice and hence he is guilty of contempt of Ct. (vide Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramchandra Naidu, a.i.R. (19) 1932 Mad. 26 : (33 Cr. L. J. 270). In Tusharkanti v. Governor of Bengal, (a. I. R. (20) 1933 Cal. 118 : 34 Cr. L. J. 662), where Amritbazar Patrika had published head lines such as 'Identity doubtful Not guilty of any offence' it was held by their Lordships of the Calcutta H. C. that they obstructed the course of justice and tended to prejudice the minds of the public and persons connected with the case and were, therefore, contempt of Ct. (vide Tusharkanti v. Governor of Bengal, a.i.R. (20) 1933 Cal. (vide Tusharkanti v. Governor of Bengal, a.i.R. (20) 1933 Cal. 118 : (34 Cr.L.J. 662).) In the publication under consideration the head line states that a notorious gang of gamblers is arrested. In the middle of the first para it is stated that Sunnalal has been keeping a gaming house for nearly 10 years. In the second para it is stated that some of the police officers are in league with the gamblers. These statements are clearly calculated not only to create an atmosphere of prejudice but also to obstruct the course of justice and tend to prejudice the minds of the public and persons connected with the case. There is no doubt, therefore, that the publication fulfils the first and the third essential of contempt of Ct. 9. Mr. Hariharniwas stated in the course of the arguments that be did not know that a case was pending in the Ct. This argument has no force. In the news item published in the paper it is clearly stated "Yesterday 8 persons were arrested by the police while gambling." This news is dated 25-5-1950, and is published in the issue of Navaprabhat of 26-5-1950. Mr. Hariharniwas, who is an advocate of this Ct., should know that the arrested persons must be produced before a Ct. Therefore, even if the opposite party did not have the knowledge that any case was pending, they certainly had the knowledge that the cause was imminent and as they published the offending matter with the knowledge that the cause was imminent, they are guilty of contempt, (vide Emperor v. Khushalchand, a.i.R. (32) 1945 Lah. 206 : (47 Cr. L. J. 115), Tusharkanti v. Governor of Bengal, a. i. R. (20) 1933 Cal. 118 : (34 Cr. l. j. 662) and In re Subrahmanyan Editor, Tribune, i. L, B. (1944) Lah. 111 : (a.i.R. (30) 1943 Lah. 329 : 45 Cr. L. J. 445 f. b.). Thus even the third essential of contempt is clearly fulfilled. Mr. Hariharniwas in his reply laid great stress on the argument that there was no intention to prejudice the course of trial. It has already been pointed out that the gist of the offence does not lie in the intention of the author; the guilt is to be determined from the effect of the article published. 10. The opposite party has tendered a halfhearted apology in their written reply. It has already been pointed out that the gist of the offence does not lie in the intention of the author; the guilt is to be determined from the effect of the article published. 10. The opposite party has tendered a halfhearted apology in their written reply. But during the course of arguments Mr. Hariharniwas offered a full and unqualified apology for the offence unwittingly committed by them. It is no doubt a serious thing to publish news calculated to prejudice the course of trial. But as it appears to be the first offence of its kind in Gwalior and there was no intention to obstruct the course of justice, we accept the apology and discharge the non - Appcts. They will, however, pay the costs of the appct. which we fix at Rs. 50. 11. A.H. Khan, J. :-I agree.