Judgment Jamuar, J. 1. Upon an application filed by one Panchanand Jha alias Panchu Jha, this Court issued a rule upon the opposite party, who are three in number, to show cause why proceedings in contempt should not- be drawn up against them. This rule has been heard today. The first two opposite party are the editor and the printer and publisher, respectively, of a newspaper called Rashtravani, printed at the Navshakti Press in Patna, and the third opposite party is one Raghunandan Kunwar, a member of the Bihar Legislative Assembly. 2. The facts giving rise to the application are shortly these. An occurrence had taken place on the night between the 21st and 22nd September, 1953, in village Dayalpur at the base of one Bhagwat Babu, in the course of which a man named Krishna Bhagwan Thakur had been caught and both his hands had been tied up and chopped off with a garassa. On the next morning, that is, on 22-9-1953, Krishna Bhagwan Thakur, on his way to Bhagalpur gave his statement before the Assistant Sub-Inspector of the Railway Police at Bihpur Station, and on the same day later, he made a dying declaration which was recorded at the Bhagalpur, Hospital. It appears, that the petitioner, Panchanand Jha, along with other accused, was charged with various offences, and the accused, by an order dated 26-12-1953, were committed to take their trial before the Court of Session. 3. On 31-3-1954, Raghunandan Kunwar, opposite party No. 3 issued a statement in Hindi, and it was published in the newspaper called Rashtravani, in its morning edition of 2-4-1954. It is this statement which gave rise to the application filed in this Court for proceeding against the opposite party for contempt of Court. It is alleged on behalf of the petitioner that, by issuing this statement, Raghunandan Kunwar, and, by publishing it in the newspaper, the editor and the printer and publisher ought to be held to have created an atmosphere of prejudice against the petitioner, and to have generally prejudiced mankind against the petitioner so much so that an atmosphere has been created in which it will be impossible for the petitioner to get unprejudiced witnesses in his favour. 4. 4. The only question which arises, therefore, is whether that statement is such upon the basis of which there is a case made for proceeding against the opposite party for contempt of court. 5. The statement has been placed before us in Hindi, and we have also an English translation of the same. It is clear from this statement that the writer is complaining to Government against the Communist Party as having been responsible for various acts, and further that Government have not been meeting with the situation with sufficient force. 6. The last but one paragraph of the statement is as follows:- - "I have tried to draw the attention of the Government in this regard by putting questions in the Assembly. Government has tried to keep peace by posting additional police in some villages in this area, but the Government has not been successful till now. I want to frankly tell my Government that in that area people are losing faith in peace and security measures of the Government. I appeal to the Chief Minister and other Ministers of Bihar that they should themselves go round these areas as soon as possible and see things for themselves, the plight of the Kisans and establish law and order. I also make an appeal to the Provincial Congress Committee that it should confer with the Government and send its workers in that area to help in restoring peace and order." 7. The only line to which our attention was drawn, as referring to the case in which the petitioner has been committed to the Court of Session is this. It is stated that, during the last one year, in the areas of three police stations which have been named therein, murder, dacoity, theft, loot etc. have been on increase; and then it is mentioned "Murder of Bhujangi Mahton, of Dimaha, murder of Medini Mahto, murder of Loot Singh of Dayalpur and chopping off of the both hands of one man ...... are some such instances which give the idea of the seriousness of the situation." Mr. Basanta Chandra Ghose, who has appeared in support of this application, contended that the words "chopping off of the both hands of one man", refer to the case in which the petitioner is an accused, and this is likely to prejudice mankind. are some such instances which give the idea of the seriousness of the situation." Mr. Basanta Chandra Ghose, who has appeared in support of this application, contended that the words "chopping off of the both hands of one man", refer to the case in which the petitioner is an accused, and this is likely to prejudice mankind. In the first place, it is not stated whose hands were chopped off; nor is it stated, in the second place, that that one man is of village Dayalpur. The petitioner comes from village Dayalpur. In my view, it is not possible definitely to come to the conclusion, that, when the writer, mentioned about the incident of the chopping off of the hands of a man, he meant clearly the petitioner. Furthermore, it is too apparent from the trend of this statement that it was a complaint against the action of the Communist Party. We were not shown anywhere from the record of this case that the writer knew that the petitioner is a member of the Communist Party. The petitioner states himself to be a member of the Communist Party, and it was argued that this was a circumstance to show that the writer meant him. But, as I have just stated, there is nothing on the record to show that the writer knew the petitioner as belonging to the Communist Party. I am unable, therefore, from a perusal of the statement issued by Raghunandan Kunwar on 31-3-1954, to hold that any part of that statement can be found definitely to refer to the case which was being prosecuted against the petitioner and his other co-accused. Mr. Basanta Chandra Ghose laid great stress upon the case of -- Supdt. and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bihar V/s. Murali Manohar Prasad, AIR 1941 Pat 185 (A) and, referred to various passages in that decision. His argument was that the decision supports his contention that although the name of an accused is not disclosed in a statement or in an article yet, if the statement is such as to prejudice mankind in respect of an accused in a pending case, the writer of that statement ought to be held guilty of contempt of Court. In my opinion, that contention is not supported by the decision relied upon. In my opinion, that contention is not supported by the decision relied upon. Clearly each of the articles, which were the subject matter of the case referred to, indicated that it was referable to the case of a soldier who happened to be Private Barney.In the articles Private Barney was not named but clearly reference was made to him either as a soldier or as a tommy or as a person in respect of whom a case was actually being heard at Dinapore. In one passage of the judgment, Harries C.J. said as follows: "There can be no doubt that the articles would create prejudice against soldiers at Dinapore, but if the matter had rested there, I would not have held that they tended to interfere with the due course of justice in this case. The writer is entitled to comment and comment severely upon incidents which he thinks deserve comment. If his comment is unjustified, persons injured by such comment have ample redress under the law of India. Comments, generally on these incidents, cannot amount to contempt. Unfortunately, however, in dealing with other incidents and with the incident which resulted in the death of this unfortunate young man, the writer and publisher has dealt with facts and has commented on them in such a way as to bring the articles within the ambit of contempt of court. Had the articles consisted of criticism, no matter how severe, of what had happened, in the past and what was then happening at Dinapore, no offence of contempt would have been committed. However, in these articles there are references to-the incident which has resulted in the commitment of Private Barney, and these references do, to my mind, tend to prejudice the case of Private Barney and do tend to interfere with due course of justice." In the present case before us, all that can be said is that the writer was commenting upon certain actions of the Communist Party, had referred to the general conditions of lawlessness then prevailing in the locality, and was clearly appealing to Government for security measures and to dear with the situation which was being created by the Communist Party. I cannot hold, from a reading of this statement, that it made any reference to the petitioner, and there is nothing, in my mind, which can be said to have tended to prejudice the case of the petitioner or to have tended to interfere with due course of justice. In these circumstances, in my mind, no case has been made out for proceeding against the opposite party for contempt of Court. 8 The application is, accordingly, dismissed and the rule is discharged. Misra, J. 9 I agree.