STATE Vs. RAM CHANDER SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. Contemner-respondent is one Pt. Ram Chander Sharma, Editor, Printer and publisher of the bi-weekly 'hariana Tilak', Rohtak.

(2.) THE complaint related to the news items, appearing at page 1 and continued at page 4 of the bi-weekly 'hariana Tilak' Rohtak issue dated 15-9-1957, stating. "no police officer has any business to commit such an act without receiving a hint from the top. Now-a-days the police officers and a majority of magistrates who are not self-respecting have to act in this manner. . . . . . tere rej men rehna to unt balai le gia han ji han ji kehna. It was contended that the caption amounted to contempt.

(3.) THE facts giving rise to this petition by the State briefly stated were that on 298-1957, one Dr, Sat Vir and others were challaned under Section 107 read with section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Sub-Divisional magistrate Jhajjar. Rao Mangli Ram, a Congress worker of some repute, was called and summoned as a witness for the police for a hearing fixed for 28-8-1957. According to. the news item in question said Mangli Ram was alleged to have contacted the Police Sub-Inspector concerned on 28-8-1957, with a view to find out the nature of the evidence that the witness was supposed to give in the case in question. The news item further disclosed that the Sub-Inspector told Rao Mangli Ram to depose against the accused concerned and also to state that apart from their raising "save Hindi" slogans, the accused were raising slogans that the "sikhs should be murdered''. Mangli Ram is stated to have declined to make such a statement and was consequently given up by the police. It is after this incident of 28th August that the news item in question was printed and published. It is necessary to note here that when the news item was published the case under section 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was sub judice. The claim of the State in instant case is that the publication of the said news item constituted a gross contempt of Court for the reasons: (a) that the magistracy in general had been dubbed as devoid of self-respect and playing to the tune of those who were concerned with the running of the administration; (b) that criminal justice was not being adminis tered by the magistracy in the State in impartial manner; and (c) that the news item was also alleged to prejudice the mind of the reading public against the integrity of the magistracy and the truthful character of the witnesses appearing in Courts and was claimed to prejudice the mind of the Court trying the case and thus deflect the course of justice.