KOCHU MOIDEEN v. NAMBEESAN — 1969 DIGILAW 59 (KER)

Judgment :- 1. This is a petition for taking action against the respondents, 12 in number, for contempt of court. 2. The petitioner is a bus operator. One of his buses was involved in an accident in front of the Cranganore Police Station on 10 111957 as a result of which a child died. Immediately a case was taken up by the Police and investigation started. About 45 minutes after the accident certain persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and burned the bus. In connection with it another case was registered in the Cranganore Police Station. One T. K. Vijayan was an accused in it. The accused in that case were arrested and later released on bail. 3. In the issue dated 13 111967 of the daily newspaper, EXPRESS, of which the 8th Respondent is the Editor, Printer and Publisher and the 9th Respondent the local correspondent, a statement of the llth Respondent who is the Secretary of the Trichur District S.S.P. Committee was published. In it there was a suggestion that the petitioner and his companions were trying to falsely implicate in the case connected with the burning of the bus his old political rivals, that T. K. Vijayan was really one who was at the time of occurence trying to pacify the mob that had collected near the bus and that he was got assaulted by the undersirable persons present there. The intention behind the statement was to show that T. K. Vijayan was really innocent in the affair. 4. In the issue of the EXPRESS dated 17-11-1967 under the caption "Rule again of the association of undersirable persons" and "concealed attempts to make innocent persons accused" it was stated in the news item that the conductor of the bus which was burnt and the other employees of the petitioner were travelling in police van hunting after their old rivals assaulting them and implicating them as accused in the case. There was an attempt in that article also to show that the persons against whom the case in connection with the burning of the bus was taken up were innocent. 5. The 4th respondent is the Secretary of the Communist Party, Marxist, at Cranganore. Under his presidentship a meeting of the United Front was held and protest was recorded against the action of the police making innocent persons accused in the case. 5. The 4th respondent is the Secretary of the Communist Party, Marxist, at Cranganore. Under his presidentship a meeting of the United Front was held and protest was recorded against the action of the police making innocent persons accused in the case. Respondents 5 and 6who are respectively the Secretary of the S.S.P., Cranganore and the President of the Niyojaga Mandalam Committee, Chowghat, spoke at the meeting that the police were acting partially in the investigation of the case and that the henchmen of the bus-owner were using the police van for foisting a false case on their old rivals. In another meeting held under the presidentship of the 5th respondent a resolution was passed suggesting that innocent persons had been implicated in the criminal case and that that was done as per a list supplied by some capitalists. All these facts were mentioned in the news item in the issue of the EXPRESS dated 17 111967. 6. The 3rd and 7th Respondents are respectively the Secretary of the Communist Party, Cranganore and the President of the Niyojaga Mandalam Committee, Eriyad. Hand-bills were printed on 15 111967 and widely published by respondents 3 to 7 inviting the public for a protest meeting. It was stated in the hand-bills that the police were aiding the bus-owner and his henchmen for foisting a false case on their rivals. 7. Pursuant to the hand-bills a public meeting was held on 19 111967. Respondents 1, 2,5, 10 and 12 spoke at that meeting making adverse comments on the investigation that was being conducted in the case. The 1st respondent is an M.L.A. and the 2nd,10th and 12th respondents are citizens residing at Eriyad, Kothaparamba and Lokamaleswaram respectively. Definite threats were also held out to the Police at the meeting held on 19 111967 by the speakers who were leaders of some of the political parties in power. Their speeches were intended to show that all the persons against whom the case was taken up by the police for the burning of the bus were really innocent and that they were falsely implicated in the case at the instance of the bus owner. The report regarding the meeting held on 19-111967 was published in the issue of the EXPRESS dated 21111967. 8. The report regarding the meeting held on 19-111967 was published in the issue of the EXPRESS dated 21111967. 8. According to the petitioner the acts of the respondents were calculated to prejudice the public and the judicial Officer before whom the case was likely to go up for trial. They were also intended to prevent the police from making an impartial investigation. It was on these allegations that the petition was filed for taking appropriate action against the respondents. 9. By the Contempt of Courts Act, 32 of 1952, the upper limit of punishment for contempt has been fixed as Simple Imprisonment for six months or fine up to Rs. 2,000/-. The Act does not contain a definition of contempt of court. Oswald in his book on Contempt of Court (1910, 3rd ed. p. 6.) defined it thus: "To speak generally, contempt of court may be said to be constituted by any conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or disregard or to interfere with or prejudice parties litigant or their witnesses during the litigation." Lord Russel defined it thus in The Queen v. Gray (1900)2. Q.B.D. 36: "Any act done or writing published calculated to bring a Court or a judge of the Court into contempt, or to lower his authority, is a contempt of Court. That is one class of contempt. Further, any act done or writing published calculated to obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice or the lawful process of the Courts is a contempt of Court." 10. Any act done or writing published that has a tendency to interfere with the due course of justice is contempt. If witnesses are prevented from giving evidence by dissuading or frightening them it is contempt. Publications which have a tendency to poison the minds of the general public and threaten witnesses or parties would make the atmosphere impossible for administration of justice. Mobilising public opinion for or against parties to pending cases would certainly interfere with the administration of justice. Statements that the arrested persons in a case were innocent and that they were proceeded against on account of attempts to foist a false case on them tend to prejudice the public mind against the prosecution and in favour of the arrested persons whose guilt had to be found by the court. Statements that the arrested persons in a case were innocent and that they were proceeded against on account of attempts to foist a false case on them tend to prejudice the public mind against the prosecution and in favour of the arrested persons whose guilt had to be found by the court. The question as to whether the persons who were arrested in a criminal case are really innocent of the offences for which they were arrested is a mattter for the court to decide. 11. The motive of the writer of an article or the speaker at a meeting is not a relevant consideration at all in deciding the question whether contempt of court has been committed or not. The truth or falsity of the allegations contained in the articles or speeches and the lack of intention or knowledge are also equally irrelevant matters. But lack of intention or knowledge has a bearing on the question whether the offender should be convicted after he is found to have committed contempt of court. With regard to contempt of court it is not necessary that every finding of guilt should be followed by a conviction. Similarly every conviction need not be followed by a sentence also. Where the facts disclose that only a technical contempt of court has been committed, and the court is convinced that it would not substantially interfere with the due administration of justice and that it is inexpedient in the public interest to take any action in the matter the court would not punish the contemner. 12. Previously the power to punish for contempt of court was arbitrary, unlimited and uncontrolled and warnings were given against use of this power unless it was found absolutely necessary. In this connection, the following observations in Legal Remembrancer v. Matilal Ghose and Others ILR. 41 Cal. 173 are relevant. "The Court will consequently not make an order for attachment, unless it is satisfied beyond dispute that the order is needed peremptorily in the interests of the administration of justice. Reference may usefully be made to the emphatic warning given by eminent judges against the inconsiderate use of this power: Reg. v. Parnell (1880) 14 Cox C. C. 474); Reg. v. Gray (1900)2 Q. B. 36); Macleode v. St. Aubyn (1899) A. C. 549); Reg. v. Dolan (1907) 2 I.R. 260); In re Clements(W7) 46 L. J. Ch. 375, 380). Reference may usefully be made to the emphatic warning given by eminent judges against the inconsiderate use of this power: Reg. v. Parnell (1880) 14 Cox C. C. 474); Reg. v. Gray (1900)2 Q. B. 36); Macleode v. St. Aubyn (1899) A. C. 549); Reg. v. Dolan (1907) 2 I.R. 260); In re Clements(W7) 46 L. J. Ch. 375, 380). This reluctance of the Courts to take action, except in cases of great gravity, may be traced to quite respectable antiquity, Historians record that when Emperor Augustus desired to punish a historian for contempt, Mecaenus advised him that the best policy was to let such things pass and be forgotten. Caesor said on a similar occasion that to retaliate was only to contend with impudence and put oneself on the same level and even Tiberius acted upon the same view. The Theodosian Code also made this the law and expressly declared that slanderers of Majesty should be unpunished, for if this proceeded from levity, it was to be despised, if from madness it was to be pitied, and if from malice, it was to be forgiven, for all such sayings were to be regarded according to the weight they bore.". At present so far as we are concerned, the maximum limit of punishment has been fixed in the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. 13. The power to proceed against persons for contempt is a shield given to courts for protecting their authority and making the same effective. It is a protective power necessary for the proper functioning of the court and the due administration of justice. Being only a shield if it is used for any other purpose it may become abuse of the process of the court. That is why courts have used the power only sparingly. 14. In regard to matters involving contempt of court newspapers publish articles and speakers make speeches at their peril. An editor takes the responsibility for all that is published in the newspaper. Editing, Printing and Publishing of newspapers and making speeches have to be done prudently and cautiously with a full sense of responsibility. It is no excuse for the Editor to say that he had no knowledge of the contents. An editor takes the responsibility for all that is published in the newspaper. Editing, Printing and Publishing of newspapers and making speeches have to be done prudently and cautiously with a full sense of responsibility. It is no excuse for the Editor to say that he had no knowledge of the contents. It may be that a newspaper may be only copying in its issue matters appearing in a hand-bill but that is no valid defence because even if it is only a copy, publication of it has the effect of prejudicing a fair trial. Editors and reporters of newspapers must know as responsible citizens that if they discuss the merits of a pending case in an article in a newspaper it becomes a published broadcast, that the public including the witnesses would certainly be prejudiced and that the result would be to adversely affect a fair trial. Judges have to be free from outside influence and as newspapers and speakers at public meetings have the power of creating climate of sympathy for or prejudice against parties to civil and criminal cases they have a special responsibility and that is not to say anything which would have a tendency to interfere with the due course of justice. 15. It is true that judges are trained men and that therefore they may not be influenced by reports in newspapers. But it cannot be forgotten that they are human beings and it is only proper that they are not told matters which they would not and should not hear. 15. It is true that judges are trained men and that therefore they may not be influenced by reports in newspapers. But it cannot be forgotten that they are human beings and it is only proper that they are not told matters which they would not and should not hear. In Delbert-Evans v. Davies and Watson (1945) 2 All E. R.167 Humphreys, J. said: "He is a human being, and while I am not saying for a moment that it is likely that any judge would give a decision which he would not have given but for information which had been improperly conveyed to him, it is embarrassing to the judge that he should be told matters which he would much rather not hear and which make it much more difficult for him to do what is his duty, " Again, he said: "It seems to me that the bringing before ...the minds of judges who have to try an appeal in a criminal case matter which they do not desire to know, and which, if it is forcibly brought to their attention, is likely to prejudice them in the fair and impartial consideration of the case, is wrong. Whether that is right or not, I cannot say; it is my own opinion and I express it as such, and no judge with long criminal experience, I venture to think, will fail to be able to recall instances in which it has had the effect of making the task of a judge extremely difficult, and no one has the right to publish matter which will make the task of a judge more difficult." and Oliver, J. said: "I fully agree with my Lord (and I share his view as to its importance), that jurors are not the only people whose minds can be affected by prejudice One of the evils of inadmissible matter being disseminated is that no one can tell what effect a particular piece of information may have upon his mind ...why should one be embarrassed by having matter such as this put into one's mind, the effect of which it is impossible to estimate or assess?" In R. v. Parke (1903) 2 K. B. 432 Wills, J. said: "The reason why the publication of articles like those with which we have to deal is treated as a contempt of court is because their tendency and sometimes their object is to deprive the court of the power of doing that which is the end for which it exists namely, to administer justice duly, impartially, and with reference solely to the facts judicially brought before it. Their tendency is to reduce the court which has to try the case to importance, so far as the effectual elimination of prejudice and pre-possession is concerned. It is difficult to conceive an apter description of such conduct than is conveyed by the expression'contempt of Court.' 16. It is not correct to say that no case can be treated as sub judice until the trial or enquiry is started in court. The correct view is that it is sufficient if a case has been registered and investigation started and that the proceedings in court are imminent. In In re Subramanyam AIR. 1943 Lah. 329 it is observed as follows: "It is not necessary in the case of a criminal trial that the accused should have been committed for trial or even for him to have been brought before a Magistrate, provided that he had been arrested and was in custody; See Rex v. Parke (1093) 103 L.T. 636: (27 T. L. R.32). 329 it is observed as follows: "It is not necessary in the case of a criminal trial that the accused should have been committed for trial or even for him to have been brought before a Magistrate, provided that he had been arrested and was in custody; See Rex v. Parke (1093) 103 L.T. 636: (27 T. L. R.32). Further, it now seems clear that the offence of contempt may be committed even if there is no proceeding or cause actually pending, provided that such proceedings or cause is imminent and that the writer of the offending publication either knew it to be imminent or should have known that it was imminent." 17. It is true that criticism of the police is not contempt of court. But if it relates to the investigation of a case and has a tendency to affect adversely a fair investigation and consequently a fair trial to that limited extent it is contempt. This view was taken in In re Subramanyam and Crown v. Brish Bhan AIR. 1950 Pepsu 9. The reason for that view is that "it is possible very effectually to poison the fountain of justice before it begins to flow". To permit newspapers and speakers at meetings to express their opinion as to who are the real culprits in a criminal case pending investigation is indirectly to allow the investigation of the case to be carried on by them. 18. One kind of classification of contempts is as civil and criminal. Disobedience of judgments and orders of the court and breach of undertakings given to courts come in the category of civil contempt. In the report by justice on "contempt of court' the following are included as coming under the category of criminal contempts. "Outrages on judges in court, interference with persons attending court, a defiant disobedience to a judge in court, libels on judges or courts or their officers, insolence to judges or comments in court on their decisions, interfering with witnesses or jurymen or officers of the court, creating a disturbance in court, jurors eating in court, and any publication which offends the dignity of the court or tends to prejudice the course of justice in any pending trial or litigation." 19. Another classification is that attempted in Roach v. Garvan (1742) 2 ATK. 469. Another classification is that attempted in Roach v. Garvan (1742) 2 ATK. 469. There Lord Hardwicke said that there were three kinds of contempt and that they were (1) scandalizing the court itself; (2) abusing parties who were concerned in causes in court and (3) prejudicing mankind against persons before the causes were heard. 20. According to the petitioner's learned Advocate the contempt committed by the Respondents in the present case was criminal and it came in the 3rd category of cases mentioned by Lord Hardwicke, namely prejudicing mankind against persons before causes were heard. 21. After a review of the relevant decisions it was held by this court in Noordeen v. A.K. Gopalan & Others 1968 KIT. 157 that in cases coming under the third category in the classification made by Lord Hardwicke anything that tended to prejudice the fair trial by a court of a proceeding that was pending or was imminent constituted contempt of court and that in such a case three questions required consideration and that they were (1) whether the facts proved constituted contempt of court; (2) whether having regard to all the circumstances it was expedient in the public interest to proceed against the contemner and convict him; and (3) whether conviction should be followed by a sentence and if so what was the sentence. 22. With the above back-ground the charges against the respondents can now be considered. For making speeches at the public meeting held on 19-11-1967 respondents 1, 2,5, 10 and 12 are sought to be made liable. They have denied the charge. In the speech attributed to the 1st respondent he is stated to have warned the police that if they did not discharge their duties properly punishment may be meted out to them. That warning was given after telling the police that it was their duty to maintain peace and not to serve the interests of the capitalists. The 2nd respondent spoke at the meeting about the necessity of all parties joining together irrespective of their political affiliations for the purpose of ending the rule of the capitalisits and the uplift to the downtrodden. In the speeches of the 5th and 10th respondents they said that the police should not give shelter to reactionaries. The 2nd respondent spoke at the meeting about the necessity of all parties joining together irrespective of their political affiliations for the purpose of ending the rule of the capitalisits and the uplift to the downtrodden. In the speeches of the 5th and 10th respondents they said that the police should not give shelter to reactionaries. According to them the fear of the poor people that whichever party came to power the rule would continue to be of the capitalists had to be dispelled and for that purpose the old practice of the police serving the capitalists had to be ended. The 12th respondent spoke at the meeting that it was the people who had collected there and who became angry who burned the bus, that in the name of that incident the bus owner was trying to falsely implicate in the case his enemies and that undesirable persons were making use of the police van. He is also alleged to have warned in his speech that no person who acted illegally would be spared. The speeches except that of the 12th Respondent may be criticisms of the executive authority and the police administration but they do not in any way, tend to interfere with the administration of justice. As regards the speech of the 12th Respondent there is a clear attempt in it to depict the burning of the bus as a mob attack. There is also an attempt in it to show that the bus-owner was trying to foist a false case on his enemies and that the police were encouraging it. They constitute contempt of court. But as the exact version of the 12th Respondent's speech has not been established he cannot also be said to be guilty of contempt of court. Therefore Respondents 1, 2,5, 10 and 12 are not guilty on this count. 23. One of the charges against the 5th respondent is that on 15 111967 he presided over a meeting where a resolution was passed suggesting that innocent persons were implicated in the case as per a list supplied by some capitalists and that in his speech at the meeting he spoke about the facts mentioned in the resolution. The 5th Respondent has denied having passed such a resolution. A copy of the resolution is not available. In the circumstances the charge regarding it against the 5th respondent has also to fail. 24. The 5th Respondent has denied having passed such a resolution. A copy of the resolution is not available. In the circumstances the charge regarding it against the 5th respondent has also to fail. 24. One of the charges against the 4th and 6th respondents is that on 15 111967 the 4th Respondent presided over a meeting of the United Front, in which the 6th Respondent was a speaker, that in that meeting a resolution was passed that the police were acting partially, that the police van was being used by the henchman of the bus-owner, that false case was being foisted on the old rivals of the bus-owner and that the police were making innocent people accused in the case and that the 6th Respondent in his speech said that the police were acting partially and implicating innocent persons in the case. The 4th respondent in his counter-affidavit admitted that he presided over the meeting and that a resolution was passed at the meeting. But the resolution, according to him, was only one protesting against police excesses. To protest against police excesses is quite legitimate. As the 4th Respondent denied the Resolution having contained anything about the propriety of the conduct of the investigation and as a copy of the resolution is not available the charge against him in respect of the resolution passed at the meeting on 15 111967 has to fail. 25. The 6th respondent in his counter-affidavit admitted having spoken at the meeting that the police were roping in innocent people and that they were acting partially. According to him he bonafide believed that those acts of the police should be prevented by public protest and nothing spoken by him at the meeting amounted to contempt of court. That part of the speech in which he said that the police were roping in innocent persons in the case was in respect of a case in which investigation was going on and proceedings before court were imminent. The criticism although it was against the police was in respect of a matter which was about to be placed before court for decision. It was for the court to decide whether they were really innocent persons or not. The criticism although it was against the police was in respect of a matter which was about to be placed before court for decision. It was for the court to decide whether they were really innocent persons or not. Before the court decided on the matter when the 5th respondent spoke at the meeting that the police were roping in innocent people it had a tendency to interfere with the due course of justice and it amounts to contempt of court. The 5th Respondent is guilty of contempt on that count. 26. One of the charges against respondents 3 to 7 is that they published a printed hand-bill dated 1611 1967 which contained statements calculated to interfere with the due course of justice. All of them except the 5th Respondent specifically admitted having issued the hand bill. The 5th Respondent in his counter-affidavit did not deny the petitioner's statement that he was also one of those who issued the hand bill. His name appears in the hand bill along with the names of Respondents 2 to 4 and 7. It was pursuant to the hand-bill that the public meeting was held on 19 111967. What was stated in the hand-bill was that in respect of the incidents which took place on 10 111967 in which a child died in bus accident and the bus was set fire to by the persons who collected there and became violent instead of conducting an impartial investigation the police were acting in a partial manner. A few days before those incidents one Ramakrishnan had died. The steps taken by the police in connection with it were reprehensible. Even if nothing else was to be expected from the present Government it was at least expected from it that it would put the law and order situation on a fair basis. What was seen was that the police were siding with the bus-owner and his henchmen who were trying to make their old enemies accused in the case. It was also learned that for getting support for their stand the bus-owner's men were going after persons who had influence with the Government. Instead of trying to find out the real culprits who were responsible for the occurrence which took place in the presence of thousands of persons the police were siding with the capitalists. That had to be ended. Instead of trying to find out the real culprits who were responsible for the occurrence which took place in the presence of thousands of persons the police were siding with the capitalists. That had to be ended. For that purpose it was essential that all political parties and persons who were not connected with them joined together and raised their protest. The question is whether these statements in the hand-bill constitute contempt of court. There is definite statement in it that the investigation that was being conducted was partial and that the police were siding with the bus owner and his henchmen who were trying to make their old enemies accused in the case. According to the persons who issued the hand bill the bus owner and his henchmen were acting in vengeance and the police were siding with them in the investigation. Looking at these statements in the hand bill as a whole there is no doubt that they have a tendency substantially to interfere with the due course of justice and that they constitute contempt of court. Hence Respondents 3 to 7 are guilty of contempt of court. 27. Another charge is that in the issue of the EXPRESS dated 13-11-1967,17111567,19111967 and 2111 1967 there were statements regarding the incident which took place on 10-11-1967 and that they constitute contempt of court. The statement in the newspaper dated 13-11-1967 was issued by the llth respondent. In that statement it was mentioned that in the name of the bus accident and the burning of the bus on 10 111967 the police and the undesirable elements had created a fearful situation at Cranganore. Taking advantage of the situation the bus owner and his friends were trying to wreak their vengeance against their old political rivals. It was learned that workers of the S. S. P. and some other political parties were being made accused in the case. There was complaint that T. K. Vijayan who was in fact trying to pacify the angry persons who had collected at the place was got assaulted by some undesirable elements. It was finally mentioned in the statement that it was necessary that attempts to implicate innocent persons in the case had to be foiled and that in that agitation the S. S. P. would be in the forefront. 28. It was finally mentioned in the statement that it was necessary that attempts to implicate innocent persons in the case had to be foiled and that in that agitation the S. S. P. would be in the forefront. 28. In the news item in the EXPRESS dated 17-11-1967 it was stated that it was public talk that using police van the bus-owner and his employees were assaulting their old political rivals and making them accused in the case connected with the burning of the bus. It was also reported that the steps taken by the police were on the basis of a list given to them by the bus-owner and that that list contained the bus-owner's political rivals who had stood for justice being done. As a result of it innocent persons would be punished and the real culprits would escape. Even the party-men of Chief Minister have not been spared. It is widely talked about that the bus-owner called several persons to his house and put pressure upon them to implicate in the case the persons whose names had been given in the list given to the police. These were some of the matters reported in the news item. The title of the news item was "Again rule of the undesirable elements" and "secret attempts to make innocent persons accused in the case". The 8th and 9th Respondents are respectively the Editor and local correspondent of the newspaper 'Express'. 29. In the EXPRESS dated 19-11-1967 a statement of Respondents 3 to 7 was published. It is a reproduction of the hand bill dated 15-11-1967 published in their names. Admittedly it was the 9th Respondent who sent it to the newspaper for publication. 30. In the EXPRESS dated 21-11-1967 another report sent by the 9th Respondent was published. That related to the speeches made at the public meeting held on 19-11-1967. It was stated in the report that at that meeting the 12th Respondent spoke about the incident in which a child died and the bus was burnt during the previous week. He is alleged to have said that it was the people who had collected there and who had become angry who burned the bus and that in the name of that incident the bus owner was trying to falsely implicate in the case his enemies and that undesirable persons were making use of the police van. 31. He is alleged to have said that it was the people who had collected there and who had become angry who burned the bus and that in the name of that incident the bus owner was trying to falsely implicate in the case his enemies and that undesirable persons were making use of the police van. 31. In the 8th respondent's counter-affidavit he said that the statement of the llth respondent published in the issue of the EXPRESS dated 13-11-1967 and the matters in the newspaper published on 17-11-1967, 19-11-1967 and 21-11-1967 did not amount to contempt of court. The counter-affidavits filed by the 9th and llth Respondents were also to the same effect. 32. With regard to the statement of the llth respondent published in the newspaper on 13-11-1967 it has to be mentioned that there is a definite statement in it that T.K. Vijayan was really a person who was trying to pacify the angry mob at the place. T. K. Vijayan was none other than one of the accused persons in the case taken up by the police. In his statement the llth respondent was attempting to show that T.K. Vijayan was innocent of 'the offence. In the news item published in the newspaper dated 17-11-1967 there is positive statement that it was public talk that the bus-owner had put pressure on witnesses to implicate in the case persons whose names had been included in the list supplied to the police by the busowner, that the persons included in the list were the old political rivals of the bus-owner and that they were really persons who stood for justice. There is also a warning that as a result of the acts of the bus-owner and his people innocent persons would be made accused in the case and the real culprits would escape. With regard to the contents of the hand bill it has already been found that they amount to contempt of court. As regards the report in the newspaper dated 21111967 of the speech of the 12th Respondent at the public meeting there is a clear attempt to depict the burning of the bus as a mob attack. There is also an attempt in it to show that the bus-owner was trying to foist a false case on his enemies and that the police were encouraging it. There is also an attempt in it to show that the bus-owner was trying to foist a false case on his enemies and that the police were encouraging it. These statements were made at a time when the investigation was proceeding and the proceedings before court were imminent. They would certainly have the effect of prejudicing a fair trial of the case. Hence they also constitute contempt of court. It is true that the 12th Respondent has been found not guilty but that is because he has denied the charge and the exact version of his speech has not been established. That cannot in any way affect the liability of Respondents 8 and 9 for the report, whether it be true or false, in the newspaper about his speech. The 8th, 9th and llth Respondents are guilty of contempt of court, the 8th Respondent as Editor for the offending statement and news in the EXPRESS dated 13-11-1967,17-11-1967,19-11-1967 and 21-11-1967, the 9th Respondent for the reports which were published in the newspaper dated 19-11-1967 and 21-11-1967 and the llth Respondent for the statement in the EXPRESS dated 17-11-1967. 33. The Respondents who have been found guilty should have known that the investigating officers would soon be laying the charge before court and that proceedings before court were imminent. The publications would substantially interfere with the due administration of justice. This court cannot shut its eyes to them. It is expedient in the public interest that the persons found guilty should be proceeded against for contempt and convicted. Accordingly Respondents 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 are convicted. 34. The question of sentence remains. The investigating officers must have experienced serious difficulty in conducting the investigation. Instead of co-operating with them and helping them to trace out the real offenders respondents 3 to 9 and 11 started placing obstacles in conducting a fair investigation. If Respondents 3 to 9 and 11 really had grievance against a particular officer or officers conducting the investigation they could have complained about it to the higher authorities. Instead they thought of prejudicing investigation and trial by propaganda. The offences committed by Respondents 8 and 11 appear to be more serious than those committed by the other Respondents who have been convicted. Having regard to all the circumstances Respondents 8 and 11 are sentenced each to pay a fine of Rs. Instead they thought of prejudicing investigation and trial by propaganda. The offences committed by Respondents 8 and 11 appear to be more serious than those committed by the other Respondents who have been convicted. Having regard to all the circumstances Respondents 8 and 11 are sentenced each to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and Respondents 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 are sentenced each to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week. Time is granted till 28-3-1969 for payment of fine. The remaining Respondents are acquitted on all the charges preferred against them.