Judgement DIXIT C.J. :- This is an application under S. 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1932, for committing and punishing the opponents for contempt of court in respect of certain publications appearing in the issues dated the 7th, 14th and 21st December 1964 and 4th January 1965 of "Gagan Ghosh", a weekly paper published from Ratlam. 2. The non-applicants Ishwarlal Paliwal and Amritlal Kothari are editors of the paper. The non-applicant No. 1 Motilal Dave was the printer of the issue. The issues of the paper, dated 7th and 14tn December 1934, were published by the non-applicant Karulal Dave. The remaining two issues of 21st December 1964 and 4th January 1965 were published by the non-applicant Kanhaiyalal Ugra. The materials facts are that on 27th November 1964 one Lila Bai lodged a report with the Ratlam Police that her daughter Radha had been kidnapped and confined in a building known as 'Jai-Hind Niwas,' situated on Station Road, Ratlam. After this report was made, the Police recovered Radha from the said building from the custody of Ramsingh Chowkidar. He was arrested the same day, that is, 27th November 1964. During the course of investigation, the applicant Asgharali was also arrested on 8th December 1964. A challan against the arrested persons in respect of offence, under Ss. 363, 366 and 393, I.P.C. was put up by the Police in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, Ratlam, on 30th December 1964. On 7th December 1964, the paper published a long account of the incident of the recovery of Radha from a room in "Banswada building" located in the Station area. The account bore the heading" Therein it was stated inter alia that one of the rooms in the building was in possession of the petitioner Asgharali; that Radha was recovered from his room; that five minutes before the arrival of the police on the site Asgharali went away in a tonga; and that the daring act of Asgharali of defiling the virginity and youth or Radha constituted a grave offence which could not be pinioned by the society. The account ended by an appeal to the Police Superintendent to arrest immediately Asgharali and thus save himself and the Police Department from condemnation. In the account, the applicant Asgharali was described as a debauch 3. The account ended by an appeal to the Police Superintendent to arrest immediately Asgharali and thus save himself and the Police Department from condemnation. In the account, the applicant Asgharali was described as a debauch 3. The issue of the paper dated 14th December 1964, published after the arrest of Asgharali, contained an account of Asgharali's arrest, and stated that it was understood that the Superintendent of Police was kept in dark about this arrest and that attempts were being made by some persons to save Asgharali by offering Rs. 5,000 to the members of Radha's family. 4. In the next issue of the paper, which was published on 21st December 1964, also it was stated that attempts were still being made by some persons to save Asgharali and that the Police had produced Asgharali before the court after registering a case against him for his reprehensible and disgusting conduct with a girl student. It was also mentioned in that issue that, though it could not be vouched, it was understood that the lady doctor Mote, acting in collusion with Dr. Tatke, had not given her report in time to the Police and the Police Department had to go to Indore to obtain the medical report. 5. In the issue of the paper dated 4th January 1965, there appeared an account of the first hearing of the case against the petitioner Asgharali and Ramsingh before the First Class Magistrate of Ratlam. In that account, it was mentioned that the Police had become suspicious about the manipulation done in the local hospital about the age of Radha and it was learnt that lady-doctor Mote had tried to show the age of Radha more than fifteen years when in fact her mother was married only fourteen or fifteen years back; and that many people had seen one person, who was himself a doctor, of the family of the petitioner Asgharali having some discussion with Dr. Mote during the period when Dr. Mote gave the girl's age as more than fifteen years. It was also mentioned that the Magistrate had charged Asgharali for offences under Ss. 383, 366 and 368, I.P.C. 6. Mote during the period when Dr. Mote gave the girl's age as more than fifteen years. It was also mentioned that the Magistrate had charged Asgharali for offences under Ss. 383, 366 and 368, I.P.C. 6. The petitioner complains that the publication, which appeared in the issue dated the 7th December 1964, constitutes contempt of court inasmuch as it deliberately attempted to create an atmosphere of sympathy for Radha and to mobilise public opinion against him and prejudice his position; that the news which appeared in the issue of 14th December 1964 was also in a similar vein tending to prejudice his case in the court; that the news-item contained in the issue of 21st December 1964 cast serious reflection on the conduct of lady-doctor Mote, who bad been cited as a witness in the case, and therein motives were attributed to her, and thus bad a tendency to, create an atmosphere of prejudice in the mind of the general public and the court both against him and the witness; and that similarly the news-item, published on 4th January 1965 attributing motives to lady-doctor Mote had a tendency to prejudice the court against him and the witness and interfere with the course of justice. 7. In obedience to the notices issued to them, the respondents appeared before us and filed their replies. The respondents Motilal Dave, Kurulal Dave, Ishwarlal Paliwal and Kahnaiyalal Ugra, in the joint reply filed by them, contend that they have not committed any contempt of court by printing, publishing and editing the objectionable matter appearing in the aforesaid tour issues of the paper. They have added that all that they published was based on reliable information and was published in public interest and their act in publishing the news-items was "in consonance with the concept of 'freedom of press' in India". The respondent Amritlal Kothari has said in his reply that he is a student and was editor of the paper only in name; that Ishwarlal Paliwal used to publish his name as an editor simply because he had contributed some amount for printing and that he had no control whatsoever in the editing, printing and publication of any matter in the paper and all this work used to be done by Ishwarlal Paliwal and he was absolutely unaware of whatever used to appear in the paper. Amritlal Kothari has tendered an unqualified apology. 8. Amritlal Kothari has tendered an unqualified apology. 8. There can be no doubt that the publication, which appeared in the issue of the paper "Gagan-Ghosh" dated the 4th January 1965 attributing motives to lady doctor Mote and suggesting that she had attempted to manipulate the age of Radha and had given her age as more than fourteen years, constitutes contempt of Court. This issue was published after a challan had been put up against the petitioner and when the case against him was pending before the Magistrate. The publication clearly affected the course of justice to the prejudice of the petitioner. To suggest in a newspaper article that evidence intended to be used in a prosecution, which is either proceeding or is plainly contemplated has been obtained by improper means and is unreliable, is clearly a conduct calculated to interfere with the due course of justice. It is for the Court to consider whether the evidence adduced before it is reliable or not, and not for the editor, printer or publisher of a newspaper to discuss that question in a public place before the case comes on for hearing. Shri Mathur, learned counsel appearing for Motilal, Kanhaiyalal and Ishwarlal, did not dispute this position, and frankly and rightly admitted that the publication did amount to contempt of Court. This issue was edited by Ishwarlal Paliwal and Amritlal Kothari printed by Motilal Dave and published by Kanhaiyalal Ugra. All of them are, therefore, guilty of contempt of Court in respect of the publication which appeared in the issue dated the 4th January 1965. 9. In regard to the publications contained in other issues, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, suggested that they could not constitute contempt of Court inasmuch as when those issues were published no challan had been filed against the petitioner and no case was pending in the Magistrate's Court. This contention is not sound. 9. In regard to the publications contained in other issues, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, suggested that they could not constitute contempt of Court inasmuch as when those issues were published no challan had been filed against the petitioner and no case was pending in the Magistrate's Court. This contention is not sound. Where the editor, printer and publisher of a newspaper are fully apprised of the fact that proceedings against a person for some offence are imminent, they would be guilty of contempt of Court if they publish any article pertaining to the matter and if the article containing matter falling within the mischief of the term "contempt of Court." To comment on a case and the parties involved in it which is about to come before the Court with the knowledge of the fact is as much a contempt as comment on a case actually launched. This proposition has been laid down in Ratnakar Jha v. Krishna Sewak Agrawal, AIR 1954 Nag 99. In that case, reliance was placed on the observations of Wills J., in The King v. Parke, (1903) 2 K.B. 432. "Great stress has been laid by Mr. Danckwerts upon an expression which has been used in the judgements upon questions of this kind - that the remedy exists when there is a cause pending in the Court, we think undue importance has been attached to it. It is true that in very nearly all the cases which have arisen there has been a cause actually begun, so that the expression, quite natural under the circumstances, accentuates the fact, not that the case has been begun, but that it is not at an end. That is the cardinal consideration. It is possible very effectually to poison the fountain of justice before it begins to flow. It is not possible to do so when the stream has ceased." These observations were referred to by Lord Chief Justice Hewart in Rex v. Daily Mirror, 1927-1 K.B. 845 where it was held that it was contempt of Court in a newspaper to publish the photograph of a person charged with a criminal offence where it was reasonably clear that the question of his identity with the criminal would arise and such publication was calculated to prejudice fair trial. Lord Hewart said that mischief in contempt of court ''consists not in some attitude towards the Court itself, but in conduct tending to prejudice the position of an accused person." In Roach v. Garven, (1742) 26 E. R. 683. Lord Hardwicke said that there may be also a contempt of Court in prejudicing mankind against a person before the cause is heard. There can, therefore, be no doubt that if the publications in the issues dated 7th, 14th and 21st December 1964 contained matters prejudicing mankind against the petitioner and arrested persons, and their position, before the case is challaned or heard and thus preventing a fair trial of the cause, the respondents, if they had knowledge or reasonable ground for believing that proceedings were about to be launched in respect of the incident, cannot escape liability by urging that no challan had been put up against the petitioner and no case was pending against him at the time of the publication of the issues. 10. The issue dated the 7th December 1964 no doubt contained libellous matter. But the respondents editors, printer and publisher of that issue cannot be held guilty of any contempt of Court in respect of that article for the reason that when it was published the incident was under police investigation, the applicant had not been arrested, and there is nothing to show that the respondents had either knowledge or reasonable ground for believing that proceedings were about to be launched against the petitioner in respect of the incident. In fact, that article expressed surprise at the inaction of the police in not arresting the petitioner, and suggested the police to arrest the applicant. This shows that the respondents thought that no proceedings would be taken against the petitioner. It has been held by the Calcutta High Court in Emperor v. J. Choudhury, AIR 1947 Cal 414 (SB), that the mere fact that the matter was under police investigation is not sufficient to prove either actual knowledge of or reasonable grounds for believing in the imminence of any Criminal Proceeding. 11. The issue dated the 14th December 1964 merely gave an account of the petitioner's arrest. It does not contain any comment on the petitioner's conduct or any statement prejudicing his position as an accused. 11. The issue dated the 14th December 1964 merely gave an account of the petitioner's arrest. It does not contain any comment on the petitioner's conduct or any statement prejudicing his position as an accused. The statement made in that article that attempts were being made by some persons to save the petitioner by offering some amount to the members of Radha's family as reparation was only for the purpose of telling the police to see that there was no tampering with any evidence. That article does not, in our opinion, contain any matter constituting contempt of Court. The third issue of 21st December 1964 was published after the petitioner's arrest and in it the guilt of the petitioner was prejudged by describing his conduct as reprehensible and heinous and motive was attributed to Dr. Mote who was going to appear as a witness. That publication clearly constitutes contempt of Court. To suggest that evidence of medical report which would be tendered in the case would not be free from suspicion and to incubate among the public a definite opinion about the conduct of the accused is clearly a conduct calculated to interfere with the due course of justice. 12. In our judgement, the respondents Motilal Dave, Ishwarlal Paliwal, Amritlal Kothari and Kanhaiyalal Ugra, who edited printed and published the issues of "Gagan-Ghosh" dated the 21st December 1964 and 4th January 1995 are guilty of contempt of Court in respect of the aforesaid articles contained in those issues. As Karulal Dave published the issues of 7th and 14th December 1964, and as articles contained in those issues do not constitute contempt of Court, the notice issued to Karulal Dave must be and is discharged. 13. Amritlal Kothari, who along with Ishwarlal Paliwal edited the issues, has tendered an unqualified apology saying that he was editor only in name, that he had no control whatsoever over the matter appearing in the paper, and that he did not know that contemptuous matter had been inserted in the paper. In his reply he has said that he is a student and had only contributed some amount towards printing. We are not persuaded to accept the apology tendered by Amritlal. He cannot escape the liability saying that he had merely contributed some amount for printing and that he was editor only in name and did not know the contents of the paper. We are not persuaded to accept the apology tendered by Amritlal. He cannot escape the liability saying that he had merely contributed some amount for printing and that he was editor only in name and did not know the contents of the paper. In our country where more importance is attached to the printed word than it perhaps at times deserves, it is impossible to permit the public mind to be poisoned with such libellous matter as was published in the issues of Gagan-Ghosh dated 21st December 1964 and 4th January 1965. Amritlal Kothari cannot be absolved of the guilt merely because he is a college-student. His measure of responsibility is great it despite his studies and youth he shouldered the responsibility of editing a paper containing highly objectionable matter. It is no less even if he was an editor in name and acted as a financier for printing and publication of offending articles. The only leniency which we can show to him on account of his being a college-student is to spare him the sentence of imprisonment. It would meet the ends of justice in his case if he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. We order accordingly. The amount of fine shall be paid on or before 30th September 1965. 14. The other respondents, namely, Motilal Dave, Ishwarlal Paliwal and Kanhaiylal Ugra, must be treated differently in the matter of punishment. They did not tender any apology. On the other hand, they sought to justify the offending publications in question by saying that what they edited, printed and published was "in public interest" and ''in consonance with the concept of freedom of press in India." Obviously these respondents have queer notions of freedom of press. They have yet to learn that freedom of press does not mean freedom to indulge in crude or sophisticated blackmailing, or licence to write anything and assassinate the character of persons, that liberty of press is no greater and no less than the liberty of every citizen of the Republic, and that no editor, printer or publisher has a right to assume the role of investigator or try to prejudice mankind or the Court against any person. The sooner the misconception is removed from the mind of these respondents that they are not accountable to the law for what they edit, write and print, the better it will be for the society. The enormity of the guilt of the respondents Ishwarlal Paliwal and Kanhaiyalal Ugra is heightened by the fact that this is not the first time that they have indulged in editing and publishing highly libellous and contemptuous matter. In Chandmal v. Ishwarlal, Mis. Cri. Case No. 145 of 1957, D/- 10-1-1958 (Madh. Pra.) (Indore Bench) Ishwarlal Paliwal was found guilty of scandalizing this Court and sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment for publishing a pamphlet. In State v. Kanhaiyalal Ugra, Cri. Case No. 11 of 1958, D/- 28-11-1960 (Madh. Pra.) (Indore Bench), Kanhaiyalal Ugra was also found guilty of contempt of Court for scandalizing this Court in a public speech and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. Having regard to these circumstances, we think it would be proper to sentence Motilal Dave to two months, simple imprisonment, and Ishwarlal Paliwal and Kanhaiyalal Ugra to four months' simple imprisonment each for editing, publishing and printing the articles contained in the issues of Gagan-Ghosh dated the 21st December and 4th January 1963. We order accordingly. The respondents Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 shall pay costs to the petitioner and also costs of the paper-book. Counsel's fee is fired at Rs. 100/-. The respondents Motilal Dave, Ishwarlal Paliwal and Kanhaiyalal Ugra shall appear before the District Magistrate, Ratlam on 11th August 1965 for being committed to jail to serve the sentences imposed on them.