JUDGEMENT : NEVASKAR, J. The present proceedings for contempt have been started on the application of Shri L.S. Shukla against the Editor, Printer and publisher of 'Jagran' a daily newspaper on account of certain publications made by them in the issues of 7 and 12-11-1952. 2. According to the petitioner the publications in question amount to contempt of Court as the same are calculated to create an atmosphere of prejudice with regard to a criminal case against him that was pending before the Additional City Magistrate, Indore. 3. Rule was issued by this Court thereupon to the Editor, Printer and Publisher of the newspaper 'Jagran' and thereupon the opponent Ishwar-chandra Jain of Shram Shibir Indore has submitted a reply. In the reply the opponent admitted the publications of 7th and 12th November but contended that the petitioner had not disclosed in what manner the opponent has committed contempt or how was he prejudiced in the case against him by the publications in question. It was further asserted that the opponent 'thought it his duty to publish every information in regard to conduct and character of Mr. Shukla for the information of the public at large', as Mr. Shukla was a political and labour leader in the City of Indore. 4. It was also asserted that, at the time of giving the letter by the complainant Nanuram addressed to the Editor Jagran for publication in the issue of 7th, the opponent was not aware of any proceedings being pending in any Court and that the other two publications are a fair and accurate report of the proceedings in Court without any undue comment. 5. It was also asserted that the criminal case against the petitioner Mr. Shukla was disposed of. 6. In the end the opponent as an Editor, Printer and Publisher of a newspaper claimed it to be the right and duty of the Press to bring to the notice of the public 'the cases in which political leaders are involved'. 7. This reply was prefaced with the tender of 'an unqualified apology for any contempt that may have been inadvertently committed'. 8. The reply to my mind is highly damaging to the case of the opponent, as I will discuss later, and a lame attempt seems to have been made to escape the consequences of a publication of the character involved in this case. 9. 8. The reply to my mind is highly damaging to the case of the opponent, as I will discuss later, and a lame attempt seems to have been made to escape the consequences of a publication of the character involved in this case. 9. The publication of Nanuram's letter to the Editor and the proceedings of the Criminal Case by Nanuram against Mr. Shukla are published in the same issue of 7-11-1952 and it is futile to assert that while directing publication of the letter the Editor was unaware of the matter printed on page 1 regarding the case against the petitioner. Editor is responsible for the entire issue and contempt consisted in publication of a prejudicial matter to injure a pending case. Assuming that he first directed the letter to be published and then the proceeding in Court, the moment the proceedings in Court of a pending case came to his knowledge he should have stopped publication of the letter in question. An Editor cannot be allowed to shirk his responsibility by a plea of this sort. 10. The publication on page 1 itself is sufficient to amount to contempt. The publication gave head-lines of a sensational character which, by them selves, are objectionable. Suggestion is made there In that there was a stir amongst the pleader class and there was probability or possibility of many-interesting disclosures. 11. In the main body of that publication the allegations made in the complaint by Nanuram against the petitioner are set out in detail. This is followed by an assertion that the complainant has given the full name and address of the petitioner and has cited eleven witnesses in support. In the last paragraph it is again stated that the case had caused a great stir in the Law Courts and the pleader-world there had begun wide spread discussion of the matter and that it was likely that many interesting things would come to light during the course of the trial. Read as a whole there is no. doubt that the publication by itself amounts to contempt. 12. In - 'In re Vidya Sagar Kapur', AIR 1938 Lah 815 (A) Young C.J. and Monroe J. had to deal with a case wherein a complaint was filed against certain persons charging them with abduction. Read as a whole there is no. doubt that the publication by itself amounts to contempt. 12. In - 'In re Vidya Sagar Kapur', AIR 1938 Lah 815 (A) Young C.J. and Monroe J. had to deal with a case wherein a complaint was filed against certain persons charging them with abduction. While the proceedings were pending the complainant took a copy of the complaint to the Editor of the newspaper 'Daily Guru'. The Editor, without making any enquiry as to what happened, proceeded to publish the complaint with scare head-lines. The head-lines were to the following effect: "A case of abduction against ...... and his father. This case has created a sensation in all the educational Muslim circle of Lahore etc.". It was held by the learned Judges that a publication of this type was not of a character involved in a case of a newspaper reporting 'bona fide' the proceedings in a Court. 13. Their Lordships in that case took into consideration 'an abject apology' submitted by the Editor and let him off with an order for payment of costs. 14. The case, apart from the ultimate order, is clearly indicative of the fact that even publishing extracts of complaint with scare head-lines with regard to pending cases is not free from risk. 15. Similar view was taken in this Court in a case reported in - 'Sunnulal v. Yeshwantsingh, AIR 1951 Madh. B.98 (B). 16. In this case I am of the opinion that the publication on page 1 itself amounts to contempt. 17. The matter is made still worse by the publication on p.4 where the head-lines chosen while publishing a letter by the complainant in a pending case, though put in inverted commas, was highly prejudicial. It ran thus: In the editorial head column it was stated that serious allegations were made by the sender of the letter to the editor against the petitioner who is a socialist leader for professional misconduct and that the editor agreed with the views expressed in that letter. 18. The third publication in the issue of 12th November gave the details of affidavit filed in the case by the complainant and the witnesses. 19. 18. The third publication in the issue of 12th November gave the details of affidavit filed in the case by the complainant and the witnesses. 19. The method employed in this case by the opponent of making publications having bearing on the case is highly improper and it cannot be denied that it was calculated to prejudice the mind of the public at large against the petitioner. The opponent does not make a secret of it and he comes out with an assertion that it is his duty to bring to the notice of the public the conduct and character of those who are engaged in political work. This clearly gives out that the publication was intended to influence the public at large regarding the conduct and character of Mr. Shukla. 20. Principle governing the cases of contempt are well established. 21. Oswald on Contempt of Court at p.91 (3rd Edn.) has said: "All publications, which offend against the dignity of the Court and calculated to prejudice the course of justice, will constitute contempts. Offences of this nature are of three kinds; namely those which (i) scandalise the court or (ii) abuse the parties concerned in causes there, or (iii) prejudice mankind against persons before the cause is heard. Under this first head fall libels on the integrity of the Court, its Judges, Officers, or proceedings; under the second and third heads, anything which tends to excite prejudice against the parties, or their litigation while it is pending. For example, attacks on of abuse of a party, his witnesses or solicitor, constitute contempts, though a mere libel, not amounting to an interference with the course of justice does not, the party being left to his remedy by action". 22. Present case falls under the second and the third category as the effect of these publications is to excite prejudice against the party and his litigation while it was pending. 23. The opponent as it appears from his attitude in his reply is labouring under a fallacy that it is his right and duty to publish matter having a bearing on the conduct and character of a party in a pending case. He claims that he can do this in public interest. 24. 23. The opponent as it appears from his attitude in his reply is labouring under a fallacy that it is his right and duty to publish matter having a bearing on the conduct and character of a party in a pending case. He claims that he can do this in public interest. 24. Their Lordships of the Privy Council in - 'Changing Arnold v. Emperor', AIR 1914 PC 116 (C) observed in this connection as follows: "Their Lordships regret to find that there appeared on the one side, in this case the time worn fallacy that some kind of privilege attaches to the profession of the press as distinguished from the members of the public. The freedom of the journalist is an ordinary part of the freedom of the subject and to whatever lengths the subject in general may go, so also may the journalist, but, apart from the statute law, his privilege is no other and no higher. The responsibilities which attach to his power in the dissemination of printed matter may and in the case of a conscientious journalist do, make him more careful. But the range of his assertions, his criticisms or his comments, is as wide as, and no wider than, that of any other subject. No privilege attaches to his position". 25. It has been held in - 'Tushar Kanti Ghose v. Governor of Bengal', AIR 1933 Cal 118 (D) that even if there be nothing misleading in a head-line or head-lines if, taken with other head-lines in an article commenting on the trial of a case they in fact amount to criticism of the prosecution case under the guise of a summary of the day's proceedings, there is enough justification for an action to be taken by the Court in contempt. 26. In - 'Qari Nasir Ahmed v. Anis Ahmed Abbasi', AIR 1941 Oudh 67 (E), it is held that so far from being any special privilege of the press, there is on the other hand a special responsibility resting on the Editor of a newspaper namely that, he is in duty bound always to bear in mind the danger of prejudicing the course of justice by the publication of article in his newspaper, which though innocent in appearance, may easily be read by the members of the public as prejudicial to the course of litigation. 27. 27. It is needless to say that it is the tendency to prejudice or interfere with the course of justice that is material and not acual prejudce or interference. 28. Mudholkar J. in - 'Wasudeoraoji Sheorey v. A.D. Mani', AIR 1951 Nag 26 (F), after referring to number of cases - English and Indian-held as follows: "It would thus appear that the publication of a document filed in a pending case would amount to contempt if it was published with the clear intention of causing prejudice or if it was calculated to cause prejudice to a trial which is pending. That is the principle deducible from all the cases to which I have referred". 29. Examining the present case in the light of the above principles it is clear that the publication with the scare head-lines was clearly intended and was calculated to prejudice the mankind against the petitioner while the cause was pending. 30. The fact that the publication was made with high motive of serving the cause of public cannot affect the question if the publication is calculated to cause prejudice in a pending trial. The enthusiasm for serving public cause, even if it be sincere, is misplaced and misdirected. 31. Although it is not essential that a publication should be intended to prejudice the public regarding the character and conduct of a person who is party to a pending litigation or trial yet if that is intended then it aggravates the matter. 32. It is high time that the press should understand its responsibilities and limitations while authorising publications in connection with matter pertaining to pending litigation and it certainly takes great risk in doing so. 33. The fact that the case that was pending when the publication was made has since then been disposed of cannot relieve the person committing contempt from his liability for contempt. 34. I am therefore of the opinion that the opponent Mr. Ishwarchandra Jain, Editor, Printer and Publisher of issues of "Jagran" dated 7 and 12-11-1952 is guilty of contempt. Since this is the first time such a conduct on his part has come to our notice I think imposing a fine of Rs.100 will meet the ends of justice. In default of payment of fine the opponent shall be liable to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. 35. Since this is the first time such a conduct on his part has come to our notice I think imposing a fine of Rs.100 will meet the ends of justice. In default of payment of fine the opponent shall be liable to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. 35. The opponent is further directed to pay Rs.50 as costs of the opposite party. 36. SAMVATSAR, J.: I agree. Order accordingly.