Judgment Jamuar, J. 1. This is an application in contempt. At the instance of the petitioner, Prahlad Prasad Mahrotra, a rule was issued upon the opposite party, Shri Chandra Bhusan who was the editor, printer and publisher of a journal called "Shola" to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of Court. 2. The petitioner stated the following facts in his petition. In the month of February last there was a tense atmoshphere prevailing in the town of Muzaffarpur in the course of an electioneering campaign for a seat in the Bihar Legislative Assembly from Muzaffarpur urban constituency, and the petitioner came across a letter bearing the signature of one Ramavatar Shastri addressed to one P. Ghose at Calcutta which disclosed that there was a plan for an attack on the person of a candidate who had been set up by the Indian National Congress for election. The petitioner then states that as the President of the Town Congress Committee, Muzaffarpur, he forwarded a true facsimile of that letter on the 21st February, 1957 to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Bihar without any comment but with a request to look into that matter and to take steps to ensure smooth polling. A photostat copy of the letter was published in a local daily newspaper called "the Indian Nation" and the contents thereof were also published in other journals. Then on the 22nd February, 1957, Ram-avatar Shastri filed a petition of complaint against the petitioner alleging that the latter had committed offences under Sections 600, 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of the aforesaid letter and denying the authorship of it. In this petition of complaint, Ramavatar Shastri alleged that the letter referred to above was a forged one and explained that his signature had been taken by some student or somebody seeking autograph and that it would appear that that signature had been utilised for the purpose of preparing that letter. The further allegation was that there was no one of the name of P. Ghose at Calcutta known to him. The contents of this petition of complaint were published in the Indian Nation and the Searchlight and in other journals in their issues dated the 23rd and 24th February, 1957. 3. The further allegation was that there was no one of the name of P. Ghose at Calcutta known to him. The contents of this petition of complaint were published in the Indian Nation and the Searchlight and in other journals in their issues dated the 23rd and 24th February, 1957. 3. Then on the 1st of March, 1957, the opposite party, Shri Chandra Bhusan, caused it to be published, distributed, circulated and sold throughout the town of Muzaffarpur and its suburbs as also in other towns and places an issue of his paper called "Shola", which was a Hindi journal, and in its leading article he, in course of his comments relating to the result of the election which has already been announced, said about the petitioner as follows :- - "Shri Prahlad Prasad Ji Jo chunao ke jung men Commandar bane then hajaro rupea kha-kar pacha gaye aur unke mahalle ke vote mila dusre paksha ko? Janta janti hai ki kal rat hi aap Calcutta ke liye rawana ho gaye is liye ki wahan apne jali patra ko liye phir koi jali P. Ghosh ko nikalkar mukadme se bachen". 4. The petitioner accordingly submitted that the opposite party had branded him a forger and a person out to concoct a defence with full knowledge that the matter is sub judice. It was further submitted that assumption made by the opposite party and held out to the public through his journal about the guilt of the petitioner in regard to offences in respect of which the petition of complaint had been filed and which was still sub judice as also the reflection made upon the petitioner and the insinuation of the concoction of defence were calculated to poison the atmosphere in which the case was yet to be enquired into, and it was further alleged that it was bound to create prejudice in the mind of the public and as such tended effectively to divert the course of justice. In these circumstances, the petitioner moved this Court stating that the opposite party was guilty of eontempt of Court and had rendered himself liable to be proceeded against for an offence under Sec.3 of the Contempt of Courts Act (Act XXXII of 1952). 5. Shri Chandra Bhusan, the opposite party, has shown cause with a prayer that the proceeding taken against him be dropped. 5. Shri Chandra Bhusan, the opposite party, has shown cause with a prayer that the proceeding taken against him be dropped. He has explained in his petition that his journal "Shola" was published at Muzaffapur for only about six weeks during the last general election and that the circulation was confined mostly to the town of Muzaffarpur and its suburbs. He admitted that on the 22nd February, 1957, he saw a photostat copy of the letter published in the Indian Nation and purporting to have been written by Ramavatar Shastri to one Mr. P. Ghose of Calcutta suggesting the existence of a plot to attack the person of the Congress nominee. It is further stated in this petition that the publication of this letter on the eve of polling at Muzaffarpur attracted widespread attention. It has further been admitted that the opposite party published the last issue of his journal called "Shola" on the 1st of March, 1957, and that in that issue he reviewed the Muzaffarpur contest in an article under the caption "Turn Salamat Raho Hazar Baras" in the course of which the passage quoted by the petitioner in his petition filed in this Court and to which the petitioner has taken exception did occur. Then the opposite party proceeded to say in his petition that his comment "was not likely to attract more than a passing attention and was not intended to poison the mind of the magistrate sitting in Patna in the case against Sri Malhotra". Then in paragraph 15 of the petition various reasons are given for sharing the belief that the letter was a forgery. There-after, the opposite party stated in paragraph 17 as follows : "That when writing the article the petitioner had not intended either to prejudice the mind of the court or to poison the public mind against Sri Prahlad pd. Malhotra in so far as the criminal case then pending against him was concerned", and in paragraph 18 he said that the petitioner did not intend to commit any contempt of court". Then in the last paragraph of the petition, the opposite party stated as follows : "That the petitioner now realises and has been so advised that the words used in the article, namely "Jali Patra" and "Jail P. Ghosh may amount to contempt of court, and the petitioner expresses his deep regret for this unwilling mistake". 6. Then in the last paragraph of the petition, the opposite party stated as follows : "That the petitioner now realises and has been so advised that the words used in the article, namely "Jali Patra" and "Jail P. Ghosh may amount to contempt of court, and the petitioner expresses his deep regret for this unwilling mistake". 6. At the commencement of the argument, Mr. Awadhesh Nandan Sahay, who appeared for the opposite party, said that the opposite party had expressed his regret in the last paragraph of his petition and that for this reason the Court may be pleased to drop the proceeding against him. Mr. Balbhadra Prasad Singh, who appeared for the petitioner, submitted that in fact there is no such apology or any expression of regret in the whole of the petition showing cause filed by the opposite party which the Court could accept. He submitted that in fact the contents of the show cause petition would show that the opposite party was prepared to justify the remarks which he had made in the leading article of his journal and then finally, in order to guard against the eventuality of the Court taking the view that he had committed contempt of Court, he stated in the last paragraph of his petition that he had been advised that certain words used by him may amount to contempt of Court for which he expressed his deep regret for his unwilling mistake. I am also of the opinion that the opposite party has not expressed any unqualified apology in his petition showing cause. We were not prepared to accept that as an apology. Then the petitioner expressed apology himself in Court and gave it in writing. 7. The position now is that the opposite party has expressed an apology to the Court in the course of the argument and it is also now admitted that the writing of his article does amount to a contempt of Court. The question which has, however, assumed importance is whether in the particular circumstances of this case the apology now expressed by the opposite party should be accepted and he should be discharged, or whether justice demands that some amount of punishment should be inflicted upon him. In the background in which the apology was expressed in Court, It can scarcely be called an unqualified apology acceptable to the Court. 8. In the background in which the apology was expressed in Court, It can scarcely be called an unqualified apology acceptable to the Court. 8. There can be no doubt that the inevitable effect of a reading of the article in which the offending remarks against the petitioner were made by the opposite party would be to cause prejudice against the petitioner. It may possibly be that the opposite party, at the time of writing his article, had no intention of influencing the decision in the criminal case which was pending at the time, but he should be presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his act. It is not the intention of the offender which matters but what the effect of his article would be in the mind of the public. The ellect would undoubtedly be to prejudice the case brought against the petitioner. That the opposite party Knew that a case was pending against the petitioner is apparent from the very passage which has been quoted above and taken from his article, namely, his statement that the petitioner had gone to Calcutta to find out a "Jali P. Ghosh" to save himself from his case. He was, therefore, fully aware of the pendency of the case. He must bear the consequences of his comments. Editors, proprietors and publishers of newspapers must always bear in mind the effect of their criticisms upon matters which are sub judice, and if their acts amount to a contempt of Court, they make themselves liable to be punished for the offence. 9. It must also be borne in mind that neither the opposite party nor any other person should be permitted to get away with the idea that all that a contemner need do is to tender an apology in Court & get away with his contempt which he has committed. Instances have recently occurred where attempts have been made to interfere with the due course of justice and it has become necessary for the Courts to take serious notice of it. The opposite party, fully aware that a case had been lodged in a court and that the court had seisin of it, commented upon that case in a way which calls for serious notice. 10. The opposite party, fully aware that a case had been lodged in a court and that the court had seisin of it, commented upon that case in a way which calls for serious notice. 10. For all these reasons, I am of the opinion that in the present case the Court should not be content with the apology tendered by the opposite party in the circumstances above stated and that it has become necessary to impose a punishment upon him. I would accordingly convict Shree Chandra Bhusan, the opposite party, of contempt of Court and impose a sentence of fine of Rs. 100/-. This fine must be paid within a fortnight from today. If there be a default in payment of this fine, the opposite party shall undergo a fortnights simple imprisonment. Chaudhuri, J. 11 I agree.