Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • Shinde
  • Abdul Hakim Khan, JJ.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • Shinde
  • Abdul Hakim Khan, JJ.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Judgment Summary — Sunnulal v. Editors & Printer of Nava Prabhat (Contempt Application)

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an application by Sunnulal seeking to commit the editors of the newspaper Nava Prabhat (Shree Yeshwantsing Kushavaba and Shree Hariharniwas Dwivedi) and the printer (Shree Vanmali Dwivedi) for contempt of court. The petition states that Criminal Case No. 215 of 1950 under Rule 3, Gambling Act, was pending against the petitioner in the Court of the Additional City Magistrate of Lashkar. The non-applicants published a news item in the Nava Prabhat (issue dated 26-5-1950, page 4, columns 2 & 3) which the petitioner alleges was prejudicial to his interests and calculated to interfere with the course of justice.

The non-applicants replied that they intended no disrespect to the court, that the publication was in the public interest, and they expressed regret and offered apology if the court considered the publication disrespectful. The petitioner’s counsel (Mr. Inamdar) argued that motive is immaterial and that any publication which tends to prejudice a fair trial constitutes contempt.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the publication in the Nava Prabhat amounted to contempt of court by tending to interfere with the due course of justice in a pending criminal case.
  2. Whether the intention or motive of the publisher is relevant to determining guilt for contempt arising from press publications.
  3. Whether the offending publication was made with knowledge of the pending cause or with knowledge that the cause was imminent.
  4. Whether the publication tended substantially to interfere with the administration of justice or to create prejudice in the public mind against a party before final adjudication.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's (Applicant's) Arguments

  • The news item published in the Nava Prabhat dated 26-5-1950 amounts to contempt of court because it tended to interfere with the due course of justice in a pending criminal case.
  • The motive of the non-applicants is immaterial; even if there was no intention to prejudice the case, publishing matter that tends to prejudice a fair trial is contempt (argument advanced by Mr. Inamdar).

Non-applicants' (Respondents') Arguments

  • The newspaper has always shown due courtesy to the court and its dignity; the publication was not intended to show disrespect and was published in the interest of public welfare.
  • If the court considers that the news caused disrespect to the court, the non-applicants expressed regret and tendered an apology in their written reply.
  • Mr. Hariharniwas asserted during argument that he did not know a case was pending in court (this was addressed by the court in its reasoning).
  • At the hearing, Mr. Hariharniwas offered a full and unqualified apology for the offence unwittingly committed.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Emperor v. Makashe Khuskal Ghana, A.I.R (32) 1945 Lah 206 : (47 Cr. L.J 115) Principles regarding contempt by press publications (enumerated and relied upon). Cited as authority for the principles governing contempt qua press: interference with course of justice, and requirement to consider tendency to prejudice.
Emperor…Prosecutor; v. Marmaduke Pickthall, A.I.R (10) 1933 Bom. 8 : (24 Cr. L.J 289) Referenced as earlier authority relating to press contempt principles. Referred to in support of established principles on press publications and contempt; used to bolster general legal framework.
Emperor v. Murli Manohar Prasad, 8 Pat. 323 : A.I.R (16) 1929 Pat. 72 : 30 Cr. L.J 741 F.B Another authority on contempt principles involving publications. Referred to by the court as part of the body of authority that frames the applicable legal principles.
Emperor v. Rhushal Chand, A.I.R (32) 1945 Lah. 206 : (47 Cr. L.J 115) Authority for the proposition that intention is immaterial and that effect/tendency is decisive. Cited to support the rule that the effect of publication determines guilt for contempt, not the author's intention.
Hargowandas v. Chimanlal, A.I.R (29) 1942 Bom. 86 : (43 Cr. L.J 583) Supports the principle that tendency to prejudice a fair trial is contempt. Used to illustrate precedent where similar press conduct was held to amount to contempt.
Demibai v. Rawji, A.I.R (24) 1937 Bom. 305 : (38 Cr. L.J 942) Authority on contempt by publication that tends to prejudice proceedings. Referred to as part of the array of cases establishing the governing rule.
Parshuram v. Emperor, A.I.R (32) 1945 P.C 134 : (I.L.R (1945) Bom. 950) Another case cited on the law of contempt by publication. Cited in support of the principle that tendency to interfere with justice is determinative.
R. v. Parke, (1903) 2 K.B 432 : (72 L.J K.B 839) Explained why publications relating to the accused's past life are treated as contempt — their tendency to deprive the court of the power to administer justice impartially. Quoted for the dictum that such publications reduce the court's ability to eliminate prejudice and prepossession, supporting the court's view of the article's prejudicial tendency.
In re Vidyasagar Kapur, A.I.R (25) 1938 Lah. 815 : (40 Cr. L.J 156) Supports the view that prejudicial publications obstruct course of justice. Referred to as corroborating authority for the legal test applied.
Sathappa Chettiar v. C. Ramchandra Naidu, A.I.R (19) 1932 Mad. 26 : (33 Cr. L.J 270) Held that misleading headlines in a pending case were calculated to produce prejudice and constituted contempt. Applied by analogy: misleading or prejudicial headlines create an atmosphere of prejudice and amount to contempt.
Tusharkanti v. Governor of Bengal, A.I.R (20) 1933 Cal. 118 : (34 Cr. L.J 662) Held that headlines like "Identity doubtful Not guilty..." obstructed course of justice and tended to prejudice minds; therefore contempt. Cited to demonstrate that similar headline-style statements were previously held to obstruct justice and create prejudice.
In re Subrahmanyan Editor, Tribune, I.L.R (1944) Lah. 111 : (A.I.R (30) 1943 Lah. 329 : 46 Cr. L.J 445 F.B) Authority referenced concerning contempt by publication where the cause was imminent or pending. Relied upon in support of the proposition that publishing with knowledge of an imminent cause can satisfy the knowledge element for contempt.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first identified the governing legal principle: the gravamen of contempt is any interference, or likelihood of interference, with the course of justice. The court emphasized that obstruction of the administration of justice cannot be excused by motive, indifference, disregard of consequences, or accident; the motive of the contemnor is not relevant to determining guilt.

The opinion reproduced the offending publication in extenso and examined its content. The court described the published article as announcing that a notorious gang of gamblers had been arrested, alleging that Sunnulal had kept a gaming house for nearly ten years, and suggesting that some police officers were in league with the gamblers.

Applying the established principles and authorities (including R. v. Parke and the Lahore decision in Emperor v. Khushalchand), the court held that such statements in a newspaper have a tendency to create prejudice and obstruct the course of justice. The court identified three matters that must be satisfied before committing a person for contempt in this context:

  1. That something was published which either is clearly intended, or at least is calculated, to prejudice a pending trial.
  2. That the offending matter was published with knowledge of the pending cause, or with knowledge that the cause was imminent.
  3. That the matter published tended substantially to interfere with the due course of justice or was calculated substantially to create prejudice in the public mind.

On the facts, the court concluded:

  • The publication clearly fulfilled the first and third essentials because it created an atmosphere of prejudice and tended to obstruct the course of justice.
  • As to the second essential (knowledge of pending or imminent cause), the court rejected the argument by Mr. Hariharniwas that he did not know a case was pending. The article stated that "Yesterday 8 persons were arrested by the police while gambling" and was published the next day; since Mr. Hariharniwas was an advocate of the court, the court held he should have known that arrested persons must be produced before the court. Thus the court found the non-applicants had knowledge that the cause was imminent.
  • Although the non-applicants tendered an apology (initially halfhearted in writing, and later a full and unqualified apology in court), and the court noted that there was no intention to obstruct justice and that this appeared to be a first offence of its kind in Gwalior, the court treated the apology and lack of intention as mitigating factors in sentencing rather than as exculpatory for the question of guilt.

Balancing these considerations, the court accepted the apology and imposed a relatively lenient disposition while recording that the publication did satisfy the elements of contempt.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court concluded that the publication fulfilled the essential elements of contempt (it tended to prejudice a pending/imminent trial and was published with knowledge that the cause was imminent). However, because the offence appeared to be the first of its kind in Gwalior and there was no proven intention to obstruct justice, the court accepted the non-applicants' apology and discharged them, subject to costs. The non-applicants were ordered to pay the applicant's costs in the sum of Rs. 50.

Implications

  • Direct effect: The non-applicants (editors and printer) were discharged after acceptance of apology but required to pay costs of Rs. 50 to the applicant.
  • Legal principle reiterated: The opinion reaffirms that, in contempt by publication matters, the decisive inquiry is the effect or tendency of the publication to prejudice the administration of justice; the motive or intention of the publisher is not determinative of guilt.
  • No broader new precedent was announced by the court beyond applying and following established authorities; the decision applied existing principles to the facts and imposed a mitigated outcome because of apology and first-offence circumstances.

Order: A.H. Khan, J. agreed; the court ordered accordingly.

Show full summary ...

    Sunnulal Radhavallabha Appct. v. Yeshwantsingh And Others Opponents.

    Shinde, J.:— This is an appln. by Sunnulal to commit Shree Yeshwantsing Kushavaba, Shree Hariharniwas Dwivedi, editors of the news paper Nava Prabhat & Shree Vanmali Dwivedi printer of the said paper for contempt of Ct. The petn. states that Cri. case no. 215 of 1950 under R. 3, Gambling Act, is pending against the petnr. in the Ct. of the Addl. City Mag. of Lashkar. The non-appct. published a news item, on page 4 Cols 2 & 3 in the issue of the Nava. Prabbat dated 26-5-1950. The publication of the news is prejudicial to the interest of the petnr. & is calculated to interfere with the course of justice. This act of the non-appcts. amounts to a contempt of Ct.

    2. The non-appcts. in their reply state that. Nava Prabhat has always borne in mind that due courtesy should be shown to the Ct. & its dignity be maintained, that in publishing the news they never intended to show the slightest disrespect to the Ct. & that the news has been published purely in the interest of public welfare. The reply further states that if the Ct. considers that the news in any way causes disrespect to the Ct. they express regret & tender apology for the same. Mr. Inamdar, the learned counsel for the patnr. contends that the news appearing in the issue of Nava Prabhat dated 26-5-1950 amounts to contempt of Ct. in so far as it tends to interfere with the due course of justice in a pending case. He also argues that; the motive of the non-appcts. is immaterial. If the publication tends to prejudice a fair trial the author would be guilty of contempt of Ct. even though he did not intend to prejudice the case.

    3. Before proceeding to determine whether the act of the opponents amounts to a contempt of Ct. or not, it is necessary to examine the law which governs the subject-matter. The gravamen of the offence of contempt of Ct. is any interference or the likelihood of interference with the course of justice. If the flow of the stream of justice is obstructed for any reason, that obstruction whether resulting from proper motive or from indifference or from disregard of the consequences or from accidental omission, cannot be excused. Motive of the contemner cannot be considered in determining his guilt. The Law of Contempt by Mr. Tekchand enumerates the principles underlying the law of contempt qua press publications as follows:

    (1) It is a contempt of Ct. to ??? the Ct. or offend against the dignity of a Judge by attributing to him dishonesty or impropriety or incompetence, regardless of the fact whether the case with reference in which the offending remarks were made is pending to the Ct. or has been decided.

    (2) It is a contempt of Ct. to publish an ??? in a newspaper commenting on the proceedings of a pending criminal case or a civil suit, ??? on the Judge, jury, the parties their witnesses or counsel appearing in the case. It is immaterial whether the remarks are made with reference to a trial actually proceeding, or with reference to a trial which is yet to proceed, provided that the judgment bus a tendency to prejudice the fair trial or ??? the decision.

    (3) It is a contempt of Ct. to publish any matter affecting the proceedings of a pending case which has a tendency to prejudice the public farther against a party, before the cause is finally heard. It is not, necessary to prove that a Judge or jury will be prejudiced. (Vide Law of Contempt by Mr. Tekchend, 2nd Edn., p. 249.”)

    4. These principle have been set out by the Lahore H.C in the case of Emperor v. Makashe Khuskal Ghana, reported in A.I.R (32) 1945 Lah 206 : (47 Cr. L.J 115). Reference to these principles has also been made in Emperor…Prosecutor; v. Marmaduke Pickthall…., A.I.R (10) 1933 Bom. 8 : (24 Cr. L.J 289) & Emperor v. Murli Manohar Prasad, 8 Pat. 323 : (A.I.R (16) 1929 Pat. 72 : 30 Cr. L.J 741 F.B).

    5. Intention of the author cannot be considered in determining his guilt. The question to consider in such cases is what is the effect of the publication. If it has a tendency to obstruct or interfere with the due & proper course of administration of justice the author will be guilty of contempt (vide Emperor v. Rhushal Chand, A.I.R (32) 1945 Lah. 206 : (47 Cr. L.J 115) : Hargowandas v. Chimanlal, A.I.R (29) 1942 Bom. 86 : (43 Cr. L.J 583) : Demibai v. Rawji, A.I.R (24) 1937 Bom. 305 : (38 Cr. L.J 942) & Parshuram v. Emperor, A.I.R (32) 1945 P.C 134 : (I.L.R (1945) Bom. 950).

    6. Before a person can be committed for, contempt the Ct. has to be satisfied with regard to the following matters: (a) that something has been ??? which either is clearly intended, or at ??? is calculated to prejudice a trial which is pending; (b) that the offending matter was published with the knowledge of the pending cause, or with the knowledge that the cause was imminent; (c) that the matter published; tended substantially to interfere with the due course of justice or was calculated substantially to create prejudice in the public mind; vide Emperor v. Khushal Chand, A.I.R (32) 1945 Lah. 206 : (47 Cr. L.J 115).

    7. I now proceed to examine the publication in dispute in the light of the legal principles expounded above. The publication is reproduced here in ex tenso:

    8. From this reproduction it is clear that news item with regard to the arrest of gamblers has been published. The bead lice suggests that a notorious gang of gamblers has been arrested. The news also suggested that Sunnulal has been keeping a gaming house for nearly 10 years. The second paragraph of the news also suggests that some police officers are in league with the gamblers. In R. v. Parke, (1903) 2 K.B 432 : (72 L.J K.B 839), where a publisher published in a newspaper matter relating to the past life of the accused. Wills, J. observed as follows:

    “…. The reason why the publication of articles like those with which we have to deal is treated as a contempt of Ct. is because their tendency, & some times their object is to deprive the Ct. of the power of doing that which is the end for which it exists, namely, to administer justice duly, impartially & with reference solely to the facts judicially brought before it. Their tendency is to reduce the Court which has to try the case to impotence, so far as the effectual elimination of prejudice & prepossession is concerned.”

    9. This dictum was followed in Emperor v. Khushalchand, reported in A.I.R (32) 1945 Lah. 206 : (47 Cr. L.J 115). Similar view was taken in In re Vidyasagar Kapur, A.I.R (25) 1938 Lah. 815 : (40 Cr. L.J 156). In Sathappa Ckettiar v. C. Ramchandra Naidu, (A.I.R (19) 1932 Mad. 26 : 33 Cr. L.J 270), where the opposite party bad published the following head lines:

    “Sathappa Chettiar in trouble; Police search at Tiruppar; Thousands of Ruppees missing; Cotton Mills in danger.”

    10. Their Lordships of the Madras H.C held that the conduct of the opposite party in publishing these misleading bead lines in the pending case cannot be said to be not calculated to produce an atmosphere of prejudice & hence he is guilty of contempt of Ct. (vide Sathappa Chettiar v. Ramchandra Naidu, A.I.R (19) 1932 Mad. 26 : (33 Cr. L.J 270). In Tusharkanti v. Governor of Bengal, (A.I.R (20) 1933 Cal. 118 : 34 Cr. L.J 662), where Amritbazar Patrika had published head lines such as ‘Identity doubtful Not guilty of any offence’ it was held by their Lordships of the Calcutta H.C that tbey obstructed the course of justice & tended to prejudice the minds of the public & persons connected with the case & were, therefore, contempt of Ct. (vide Tusharkanti v. Governor of Bengal, A.I.R (20) 1933 Cal. 118 : (34 Cr. L.J 662).) In the publication under consideration the head line states that a notorious gang of gamblers is arrested. In the middle of the first par) it is stated that Sunnalal has been keeping a gaming house for nearly to years. In the second para it is stated that some of the police officers are in league with the gamblers. These statements are clearly osculated not only to create an atmosphere of prejudice but also to obstruct the coarse of justice & tend to prejudice the minds of the public & persons connected with the case. There is no doubt, therefore, that the publication fulfils the first & the third essential of contempt of Ct.

    11. Mr. Hariharniwas stated in the course of the arguments that be did not know that a case was pending in the Ct. This argument has no force. In the news item published in the paper it is clearly eta fed “Yesterday 8 persons were arrested by the police while gambling.” This news is dated 25-5-1950, & is published in the issue of Navaprabhat of 26-6-1950. Mr. Hariharniwas, who is an advocate of this Ct., should know that the arrested persons must be produced before a Ct. Therefore, even if the opposite party did not have the knowledge that any case was pending, they certainly had the knowledge that the cause was imminent & as they published the offending matter with the knowledge that the cause was imminent, they are guilty of contempt. (vide Emperor v. Khushalchand, A.I.R (32) 1945 Lah. 206 : (47 Cr. L.J 115), Tusharkanti v. Governor of Bengal, A.I.R (20) 1933 Cal. 118 : (34 Cr. L.J 662) & In re Subrahmanyan Editor, Tribune, I.L.R (1944) Lah. 111 : (A.I.R (30) 1943 Lah. 329 : 46 Cr. L.J 445 F.B). Thus even the third essential of contempt is dearly fulfilled. Mr. Hariharniwas in his reply laid great stress on the argument that there was no intention to prejudice the course of trial. It has already been pointed out that the gist of the offence does not lie in the intention of the author; the guilt is to be determined from the effect of the article published. The opposite party has tendered a halfhearted apology in their written reply. But during the course of arguments Mr. Hariharniwas offered a full & unqualified apology for the offence unwittingly committed by them. It is no doubt a serious thing to publish news calculated to prejudice the course of trial. But as it appears to be the first offence of its kind in Gwalior & there was no intention to obstruct the course of justice, we accept the apology & discharge the non-appcts. They will, however, pay the costa of the appct. which we fix at Rs. 50.

    A.H Khan, J.:— I agree.

    12. Order accordingly.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Sunnulal Radhavallabha Appct. v. Yeshwantsingh And Others Opponents.
    (Dec 14, 1950)