Judgment G.N.Prasad, J. 1. This rule has been issued at the instance of the petitioners Kedar Prasad Sinha and Arjun Pandey, calling upon the respondents, who are twenty-five in number, to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt of Court 2. The material facts are the following. :- - The petitioners along with nine others are accused in a case of rioting and murder which was instituted upon a police report. While the commitment proceedings were pending in the court of a Munsif Magistrate at Jamui (District Monghyr), the Assistant District Prosecutor incharge of the case filed a petition under Sec. 494, Code of Criminal Procedure, for permission of the Court to withdraw from the prosecution. That was on the 18th September 1967. But the court declined to grant the permission. Against that order two criminal revision applications were filed in this court, one on behalf of the State of Bihar which was numbered as Criminal Revision No. 2035 of 1967. and the other on behalf of the petitioners which was numbered as criminal Revision No. 2036 of 1967. Both these Criminal Revisions were admitted by this court on the 30th November, 1967, and they are still pending for final hearing. 3. During the pendency of the aforesaid Criminal Revisions certain matter was published in the official gazette known as the Bihar Gazette in its extraordinary issue dated the 12th March 1968, and the same was also published in a daily newspaper of Patna known as the Searchlight in its issue dated the 14th March, 1968. It was in the following terms. "Allegation No. J-4. Withdrawal of Case against K. P. Sinha. Sri Kedar Prasad Sinba and Sri Arjun Pandey were facing prosecution along with nine others in a serious case of rioting with murder which was pending before the Munsif Magistrate Jamui. They filed a revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Monghyr, against their prosecution, which was dismissed. Thereupon on 6-6-67 they presented an application direct to the then Minister for law, Sri Hasibur Rahman, who directed that the law Secretary should examine the matter and report and in the meanwhile the District Magistrate was requested to take two months adjournment of the case and also send the case diary with his report. On 17/8/67 the District Magistrate sent his report opposing withdrawal of the case. On 17/8/67 the District Magistrate sent his report opposing withdrawal of the case. Even before the District Magistrates letter was diarised in the law Department Sri Hasibur Rahman called for the file directly from, the Dealing Assistant and ordered that a telegram should be sent to the District Magistrate to take further adjournment for a fortnight The matter was then examined thoroughly by the officers of the Law Department and in his not dated 30-8-1967, the Law Secretary recommended against withdrawal of the prosecution pointing out that there was a prima facie case and justice demanded that it should be thrashed out in Court Sri Hasibur Rahman, however, ignored the advice of the District Magistrate as well as of the Law Secretary and ordered on 10-9-67 that the case should be withdrawn. A petition for withdrawal was accordingly filed on 18-9-67 but was rejected by the trial Court. Thereupon, Sri Hasifaur Rahman directed that a revision should be filed in the High Court against the refusal of the trial Court to allow withdrawal of the case. A revision was accordingly filed which is still pending before the High Court Sri Hasibur Rahman thus by misuse of his official position and power unnecessarily interfered with the administration of justice in a serious case of rioting with murder." 4. The contention of the petitioners Is that the printed matter constitutes contempt of this Court, inasmuch as the publication was made "on the merits of the case and affecting the merits of the case to present how the application for withdrawal of the case had been made in spite of and contrary to opposition by certain officials who appeared to be interested in the case" and as "such publication has a result of interfering with the course of justice and prejudicing the mankind against the petitioners in the pending case" (vide paragraphs 6 and 7 of their petition). 5. Respondent No. 1 is the State of Bihar, Respondent No. 2 is Sri Bindesh-wari Prasad Mandal who at the relevant time was the Chief Minister of Bihar, and respondents Nos. 3 to 20 were the members of his council of Ministers. Among them, Sri Shambhunath Jha (respondent No. 3) was Minister without Portfolio, and the rest were Ministers in charge of the different departments of the Government. 3 to 20 were the members of his council of Ministers. Among them, Sri Shambhunath Jha (respondent No. 3) was Minister without Portfolio, and the rest were Ministers in charge of the different departments of the Government. Sri Subhas Chandra Sarkar (respondent No. 21) and Sri Awadesh Kumar Tiwari (respondent No. 22) are respectively the Editor and the printer cum publisher of the Searchlight, a well-known daily newspaper of Patna, Sri S. N. Chatterji, (respondent No. 23) is the Superintendent Secretariat Press, Bihar, Sri Ram Prasad Sinha (respondent No. 24) is the Superintendent Stationery Stores and Publication, Bihar. Lastly, Sri S.V. Sohoni (respondent No. 25) is the Chief Secretary of the Government of Bihar. 6. According to the petitioners, by reason of the said publication (in the Bihar Gazette and in the Searchlight) each of these respondents has become liable to be committed for contempt of Court. The averments on the point are contained in paragraphs 4, 10 and 11 of their petition which read:- - 4. "That while the said matter is still pending in this Hon ble Court, respondent No. 3, issued for publication what purported to be the allegations against Sri Hasibur Rahman Ex-Minister of Bihar and Respondent No. 22 published the same in the Searchlight of 14th March, 1968. 10. That respondent No. 2 was the Chief Minister and Respondents Nos. 3 to 20 were the members of the Council of Ministers who are alleged to have abetted and approved of the aforesaid statements and issued directions to publish the same. Respondent No. 3 had handed over the statements to the press for publication in the newspaper. Respondent No. 22 has published the same in the Searchlight of morning edition of the 14th March, 1968 of which respondent No. 21 is the Editor, without taking due care to verify the correctness of the statements and without taking care to avoid causing prejudice to the case of the petitioners. 11. That the same has been printed and published in the Bihar Gazette Extraordinary dated the 12th March, 1968, by respondents 23 to 24. 11. That the same has been printed and published in the Bihar Gazette Extraordinary dated the 12th March, 1968, by respondents 23 to 24. A copy of the Gazette has been despatched to Subscribers along with the Bihar Gazette dated the 13th March 1968 and received by Patna subscribers on 21st March, 1968." Subsequently, in a supplementary affidavit it has been stated that respondent No. 25 is also liable for contempt of Court, since the offending matter was published in the Bihar Gazette Extraordinary dated the 12th March, 1968 under his signature. 7. Upon notice, respondent No. 12 did not appear and the rule has been heard ex parte against him. The other respondents have appeared through their respective counsel and they have been heard. Counter-affidavits showing cause have also been filed by 16 of them. The stand of the ex-Ministers has been sufficiently explained in the counter affidavits of respondents Nos. 2 and 3. The Ex-Chief Minister and the other members of his council have taken full responsibility for the contents of the offending publication, but they maintain that they have said nothing about the merits of the question of withdrawal of the criminal case pending decision in this Court. It has been stated that the offending matter was intended for submission to a Commission of Enquiry headed by an ex-Judge of the Supreme Court by way of allegations against the conduct of a former law Minister, Sri Hasibur Rahman to the effect that he had abused his official position in relation to the criminal case in question by trying to have that case withdrawn in the teeth of opposition of the District Magistrate and the Secretary to Government, Law Department, by adopting a procedure which was in utter disregard of the instructions contained in the Rules of Executive Business (framed under Article 166(3) of the Constitution of India). In paragraphs 6, 7, 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit of the ex-Chief Minister (respondent No. 2) it has been stated :- - 6. In paragraphs 6, 7, 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit of the ex-Chief Minister (respondent No. 2) it has been stated :- - 6. "That the subject matter of the said allegation against Sri Hasibur Rahman was not the merit of the decision taken by him for withdrawing the case but the procedure adopted by him in the teeth of opposition of the District Magistrate and the Secretary to Government, Law Department and in complete disregard of the instructions contained in the Secretariat Instructions regarding flow of papers so much so that he went to the extent of taking the file direct from the dealing assistant and passing orders. These are all facts on records and the said allegation contained a resume of these very facts." 7. "That the Cabinet of which respondent No. 2 was the Chief Minister did nothing other than advising the Governor of the State for entrusting this matter to another statutory authority i.e. the Commission of Inquiry headed by an ex-Judge of the Supreme Court of India, and, as such, entrustment to a fact finding statutory body regarding, the procedure adopted in arriving at the decision in question, cannot, it is hereby submitted, amount to contempt of Court." 10. "That the Cabinet was assisted in coming to the decision in question by the Law Department of the State Government, where the allegation in question had been actually drafted by the Vigilance Commissioner and the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Bihar, and, nobody at any stage even pointed out that the formulation of the present allegation and its entrustment to the Commission of Inquiry headed by an eminent Ex-Judge of the Supreme Court would in any manner attract the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. It would thus be obvious that they also bona fide believed that the two issues were distinct and severable and the entrustment of corruption allegation to Commission of Inquiry was not at all objectionable for in that eventuality they should have and must have pointed out this fact to the Cabinet" 11. "That in the absence of any such report from the Law Department and other high-ranking State officials, the respondent No. 2 did believe in a bona fide manner that nothing wrong was being done by entrustment of the allegation to the Commission of Inquiry." 8. "That in the absence of any such report from the Law Department and other high-ranking State officials, the respondent No. 2 did believe in a bona fide manner that nothing wrong was being done by entrustment of the allegation to the Commission of Inquiry." 8. In paragraph 5 of his counter-affidavit the ex-Minister without portfolio (respondent No. 3) has stated that the decision of the Cabinet to submit the aforesaid allegations to the Commission of Inquiry was taken in the name of the Governor of Bihar and was printed in the Bihar Gazette and was formally released to the press." 9. In his affidavit, the Chief Secretary (respondent No. 25) stated that the "offending matter happened to be included by inadvertence" and that as soon as his attention was drawn to the matter the "offending charge was deleted." He has also expressed regret for "the error". 10. Respondents Nos. 28 and 24 also have expressed their regret for the publication made in the official Gazette "mechanically" in course of their official duty, and have offered unconditional apology for the said publication. 11. In their counter affidavit, the Editor and the printer (respondents Nos. 21 and 22) or the Searchlight have stated: 4. "That the news contained in Annexure "A" of the petition filed by the petitioner was the part of a Gazette Notification of Bihar Government and was published in good faith and in public interest without knowing the truth or falsehood." 5. "That it is submitted that the aforesaid news was published in the ordinary course of business without knowing the truth or falsehood of the facts contained in the news". 7. "That it is submitted that the aforesaid publication of the news in the daily paper was never intended to reflect on any pending case before the Hon ble High Court or any Court, nor does it intend to impede the course of justice or to pollute the stream of administration of justice of this Hon ble Court." 12. Substantially, two questions arise for decision in this case. The first is, whether the offending matter contains anything which constitutes contempt of Court. Secondly, are all or any of the respondents guilty of such contempt. 13. It is well known that contempt of Court may take various forms. Substantially, two questions arise for decision in this case. The first is, whether the offending matter contains anything which constitutes contempt of Court. Secondly, are all or any of the respondents guilty of such contempt. 13. It is well known that contempt of Court may take various forms. A person is guilty of contempt of Court if he does anything which obstructs or interferes with the due course of justice or which is calculated or intended to interfere with the due course of justice. But actual interference or intention to interfere with the course of justice is not a necessary ingredient of the offence of contempt of Court. Even without such ingredient a person may be guilty of contempt of Court if he does an act which tends to obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice in a pending cause. To quote what Harries, C.J. said in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, Bihar V/s. Murli Manohar Prasad, 21 Pat LT 980 at p. 998= (AIR 1941 Pat 185 at p. 194). "It has always been laid down in England, and indeed in this country, that the writer of an article can be guilty of contempt without intending to interfere with the due course of justice. An article written with the deliberate intention of interfering with the due course of justice would be an extremely serious matter meriting very serious punishment. He can, however, be guilty of writing an article which tends to interfere with the course of justice without intending so to interfere. The test has always been not what the writer intended but what effect the words would have upon readers. In my judgment the case of P.S. Tuljaram Rao V/s. Sir James Taylor, Governor of Reserve Bank of India, ILR (1939) Mad 466 = (AIR 1939 Mad 257) cannot be regarded as dissenting from the long-established view relating to cases of this kind. Once it is held that words are likely to cause substantial interference with the due course of justice or likely substantially to prejudice the hearing of a case or the trial of an accused person then the writer of such an article is guilty of contempt whether he intended such results or not. Once it is held that words are likely to cause substantial interference with the due course of justice or likely substantially to prejudice the hearing of a case or the trial of an accused person then the writer of such an article is guilty of contempt whether he intended such results or not. The question of intention is irrelevant in considering whether the offence has been committed, though, of course, it is a most important matter in considering the appropriate sentence to be imposed." Therein it was further held (at page 989 of Pat LT) = (at p. 188 of AIR): "It has been frequently laid down that any act done or writing published, which is calculated to interfere with the due course of justice is a contempt of Court and writing prejudicing the public for or against a party are similarly contempt: See Queen V/s. Gray, (1900) 2 QB 36 and In re: Read and Huggonson, (1742) 2 Atk 469. It has also been laid down that no intent to interfere with due course of justice or to prejudice the public need be established if the effect of the article or articles complained of is to create prejudice or is to interfere with the due course of justice." 14. In another English case, Hunt V/s. Clarke, (1889) 58 LJ QB 490, it was held that a publication in a newspaper pending an action or before the trial of an action of any observation which in any way prejudices the parties to the action is technically a contempt of court; but the Court will not exercise its extraordinary power of committal if the offence complained of is of a slight or trifling nature and only if it is likely to cause substantial prejudice to the parties in the action. 15. I will assume, as urged before me, that this is not a case of intentional interference with the due course of justice. But I must consider whether the offending publication has the tendency of prejudicing the case of the petitioner in the criminal revision applications which are pending in this Court so as to amount to technical contempt. 16. In the offending publication itself it has been indicated that the question as to whether the criminal case pending against the petitioners and others should be permitted to be withdrawn or not is pending before this court. 16. In the offending publication itself it has been indicated that the question as to whether the criminal case pending against the petitioners and others should be permitted to be withdrawn or not is pending before this court. It is manifest that in dealing with the two criminal revision applications this court will have to be guided by the principles laid down in various decisions of this Court and other High Courts in India for deciding whether an application for withdrawal under Sec. 494, Code of Criminal Procedure, should be granted or not. In King V/s. Parmanand, 50 Cri LJ 474= (AIR 1949 Pat 22) a Full Bench of this Court pointed out that giving or withholding the consent to the withdrawal of the public prosecutor from the prosecution is judicial act and the discretion conferred on the Court under Sec. 494 must be exercised judicially. In King v. Moule Bux, 50 Cri LJ 488 = (AIR 1949 Pat 233) another Full Bench of this Court reiterated the same principle and observed: "It is well settled now by a number of decisions of this Court as also other High Courts in India that an order of acquittal or discharge passed under Sec. 494 Criminal Procedure Code, consequent on the withdrawal of the public prosecutor from the prosecution of any person with the consent of the Court, is a judicial order and liable to revision by this Court, if the discretion vested in the Magistrate to give consent has been improperly or arbitrarily exercised. Ordinarily, this Court is reluctant to interfere with the discretion given, but undoubtedly has power to do so, and will do so in special circumstances where the withdrawal appears to be manifestly improper." 17. It follows that the question which this court will have to decide in the two pending criminal revision applications will be whether the discretion which the learned Magistrate of Jamui has exercised in refusing his consent to the withdrawal of the criminal case pending before him against the petitioners and others has been properly exercised or not. In dealing with this question this Court will have to bear in mind that Sec. 494, Code of Criminal Procedure, is couched in very general terms and does not lay down any fixed rule as to the reasons for withdrawal. In dealing with this question this Court will have to bear in mind that Sec. 494, Code of Criminal Procedure, is couched in very general terms and does not lay down any fixed rule as to the reasons for withdrawal. But for consenting to the withdrawal, the Court must be satisfied that it is a bona fide application and supported by reasons of State or public policy. It must also be convinced about the inexpediency of continuing the prosecution. These aspects of the question will have to be considered in the light of the materials which have already been brought on the records of the case. I have given a careful consideration to the offending matter and I have kept in mind both the points of view. It must be conceded that nothing has been said in it about the merits of the case which is sought to be withdrawn. At the same time there can be no doubt that certain facts have been incorporated therein which gave rise to the impression that the petition for withdrawal of the prosecution which was filed before the learned Magistrate was not at all bona fide. It was filed in the teeth of opposition of the District Magistrate and the Law Secretary who had carefully examined the matter and recommended against the withdrawal of the prosecution and wanted the case to be thrashed out in court in the interest of justice. It has been stated in the offending matter that Sri Hasibur Rahman, who was then the Law Minister, had ignored the advice of the District Magistrate as well as of the Law Secretary and had passed an order that the case should be withdrawn and that was how the petition for withdrawal was filed in court. These statements of! facts must convey the impression that the withdrawal petition was the outcome of the personal action of the then Law Minister and not supported by reasons of State or public policy. On the contrary, it was filed although the concerned officers were of the view that justice demanded that the case should be proceed-ed with and thrashed out in Court. It may be that it was sought to be made out that the then Law Minister, who had ordered that the case should be withdrawn, had acted in breach of the usual rules of procedure applicable to such matters. It may be that it was sought to be made out that the then Law Minister, who had ordered that the case should be withdrawn, had acted in breach of the usual rules of procedure applicable to such matters. I should refer in this connection to item No. 20 of the Third Schedule at pase 44 of the Rules of Executive Business, 1965 which indicates that any proposal for the institution or withdrawal of a prosecution against the advice tendered by the Judicial Department (Legal Remembrancers Branch) must be referred to the Council of Ministers for discussion and final orders of the Government. It was indicated in the offending matter that the then law Minister had passed orders in the matter without obtaining the approval of the Council o Ministers and had thereby misused his official position and power with a view to interfere with the administration of justice in a serious case of rioting and murder. But anybody who reads the allegations contained in the offending matter must be led away with the impression that the withdrawal petition was not at all a bona fide one. It also conveys the impression that Sri Hasibur Rahman had taken undue personal interest in the case pending in court and had got the withdrawal petition filed with a view to prevent the administration of justice from taking its due course. In the face of such facts and circumstances which have been made public by reason of publication both in the official gazette and in the newspaper, the petitioners in the revision applications pending in this court, must feel embarrassed in presenting their case in this court and find it difficult to persuade this court to interfere with the order of the learned Magistrate who has declined to consent to the withdrawal from the prosecution. In other-words, the offending publication has undoubtedly the effect of creating an atmosphere of prejudice against the case of the petitioner in the two criminal prevision applications which are pending in this Court. In my opinion therefore, the offending publication does amount to technical contempt of this Court. 18. In other-words, the offending publication has undoubtedly the effect of creating an atmosphere of prejudice against the case of the petitioner in the two criminal prevision applications which are pending in this Court. In my opinion therefore, the offending publication does amount to technical contempt of this Court. 18. On behalf of the contesting respondents it was urged that the offending matter had been drawn up for the purpose of being placed before a commission constituted under the Commission of Inquiry Act so that the conduct of the Law Minister Sri Hasibur Rahman might be examined and as such the act was committed in good faith and did not amount to contempt of Court. It is true that the mere submission of such allegations against Sri Hasibur Rahman before a Commission of Inquiry would not have amounted to contempt of Court. It is well settled that an authority or a Tribunal holding an enquiry in good faith in exercise of powers vested in it by statute is not guilty of contempt of court. If the allegations against Sri Hasibur Rahman would not have been publicised but merely submitted to the Commission of Inquiry for investigation, no exception could have been taken. But the mischief in this case was committed by publicising the said allegations with full knowledge that the two criminal revision petitions were pending in this court and the question as to whether the withdrawal petitions were bona fide or not was still to be considered by this Court. I have not been shown any statutory provision which lays down that allegations of the nature contained in the offending matter must be printed in the official gazette or in the public press. It has also not been suggested, and it cannot be suggested, that every decision of the Council of Ministers must be published in the official gazette or in the public press. From the offending publication itself it is clear that the Council of Ministers were aware that the criminal revision applications were still pending in this Court. Therefore, the offending matter should not have been released for publication either in the official gazette or in the public press, at least until the disposal of the criminal revision applications aforesaid. 19. The first question which I have formulated for decision in this case must, therefore, be answered in the affirmative. Therefore, the offending matter should not have been released for publication either in the official gazette or in the public press, at least until the disposal of the criminal revision applications aforesaid. 19. The first question which I have formulated for decision in this case must, therefore, be answered in the affirmative. The question then arises whether all the respondents or any one of them have rendered themselves liable to committal for contempt of court. In paragraph 10 of the petition of the petitioners it has no doubt been stated that all the members of the Council of Ministers must be deemed to have abetted the commission of contempt of Court since they are alleged to have issued directions for the publication of the offending matter and that Sri Shambhu Nath Jha, respondent No. 3 in particular, was liable, since it was he who had handed over the offending matter to the press for publication in the newspaper. But paragraph 10 must be read along with paragraph 4 of the petition wherein it has been clearly alleged that it was respondent No. 3 who had issued the offending matter for publication in the Searchlight Reading these two paragraphs of the petition I am of the opinion that the entire Council of Ministers cannot be held responsible for the publication in the newspaper. In paragraph 10 the petitioners have merely alleged that the members of the Council of Ministers "are alleged" to have issued directions for publication of the offending matter. This is not clear averment of the fact that in point of fact all the members of the Council of Ministers had issued any such directions. But so far as Shri Shambhu Nath Jha, respondent No. 3 is concerned it is clear that it was he who had issued that offending matter for publication in the press. This has not been denied by Sri Shambhu Nath Jha, respondent No. 3 in his counter affidavit. On the other hand, it has been stated in his counter-affidavit that the allegations were printed both in the Bihar Gazette and in the press as a matter of formality, Sri Shambhu Nath Jha, respondent No. 3 was undoubtedly responsible for releasing the offending matter for publication in the newspaper. But the remaining members of the Council of Ministers cannot be saddled with the responsibility of releasing the offending matter for publication in the newspaper. 20. But the remaining members of the Council of Ministers cannot be saddled with the responsibility of releasing the offending matter for publication in the newspaper. 20. I have already referred to the stands taken by the Chief Secretary, respondent No. 25 and the Superintendents of the Secretariat Press and Stationery Stores and Publications (respondents 23 and 24). In view of regret expressed by respondent No. 25 and the unqualified apology tendered by respondents 23 and 24 learned counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that these respondents need not be proceeded with. In my opinion, these three respondents took a very fair stand. Accordingly by my order dated 29th July, 1968, I discharged the rule as against these three respondents. Therefore, the situation emerging from publication of the offending matter in the official gazette needs no further consideration. 21. The case of the Editor and the Printer-cum-publisher of the Searchlight, respondents Nos. 21 and 22 remains to be considered. They were both responsible for the publication made in the Searchlight of the 14th March 1968, but they claim to have done so in good faith and in ordinary course of business without knowing the truth or otherwise of the facts contained therein. Their further plea is that the matter was published in the official gazette. It is manifest that a publication of such a character should not have been made in the Searchlight as a matter of routine. The mere fact that it was published in the official gazette is no justification for the publication made by respondents 21 and 22 in their newspaper. These two respondents cannot be heard to say that because some wrongful act was committed by the officers responsible for the publication in the official gazette, they were also free to commit similar wrongful act. Both of them must have known from the offending matter itself that the two criminal revision applications relating to the withdrawal matter were pending in this court. That should have made them circumspect and they should have refrained from publishing the matter in the ordinary course of business without ascertaining the implications involved therein. Since they did not exercise the care which they ought to have exercised. Respondents Nos. 21 and 22 cannot take the plea of good faith. It is clear that both these respondents were responsible for giving wide publicity to something which amounted to contempt of this Court. 22. Since they did not exercise the care which they ought to have exercised. Respondents Nos. 21 and 22 cannot take the plea of good faith. It is clear that both these respondents were responsible for giving wide publicity to something which amounted to contempt of this Court. 22. Upon a careful consideration of the material on the record I have come to the conclusion that Sri Shamhhu Nath Jha (respondent No. 3) and the Editor and the Printer-cum-publisher of the Searchlight (respondents Nos. 21 and 22} are guilty of contempt of this Court in relation to the two criminal revision applications pending in this court. But so far as the remaining respondents are concerned, the guilt has not been brought home to them beyond doubt. Therefore, the rule is made absolute against respondents Nos. 3, 21 and 22 only and it is discharged against the remaining respondents. 23. In view, however, of the fact that the contempt which respondents Nos. 3, 21 and 22 have been found to have committed is of a technical character, I do not propose to impose any sentence upon them either of imprisonment or of fine. Accordingly, I let them off with a warning, in the hope that they will not repeat such act of indiscretion, in future.