LAKHAN SINGH Vs. BALBIR SINGH
LAWS(ALL)-1952-4-7
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on April 30,1952

LAKHAN SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
BALBIR SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS is an application praying that the opposite parties be committed for contempt of Court and be dealt with according to law. The opposite parties are two persons, Chau-dhari Balbir singh and Sri Balswarup Gupta. Chaudhari Balbir Singh is the Managing Editor, publisher and printer of an Urdu Weekly known as 'hindustan Weekly, Meerut' and opposite party 2, balswarup Gupta is alleged to be the Editor in charge of the paper. The applicant is a thekedar of a country liquor shop at Muzaffar-nager. He acquired the theka at a public auction held on 22-3-1951, for a period of one year. He was the thekedar of country liquor in the previous year also. On 6-2-1951, the Tahsildar seized some bottles containing liquor on suspicion that the liquor was diluted. As dilution of liquor was in contravention of the terms of the licence, a case under Section 64, Excise Act, was started on 6-4-1951 against the applicant after permission had been obtained for the same from the District Magistrate. The case is still pending in the Court of the Magistrate, Sri Uma Shanker. The Hindustan Weekly in a noto dated 6-6-1951 referred to this case against the applicant in these words : "we are informed that on 6-2-1951, Sri Khalaq Singh Tahsildar Muzaffarnagar, seized some bottles of liquor and the liquor was found to be diluted with water. Sri D. P. Singh, Collector of the District has made over charge of that case on 7th April to Sri S. N. Singh, Magistrate, First class, under Section 04, Excise Act. The Collector has now transferred the case to the file of Sri uma Shanker. The result of the case is being awaited with interest. "
(2.) IN its issue of 27-6-1951 it published a note headed 'zilla Muzaffarnagar ke thekedaran sharab'. It was in these terms: "a correspondent informs us that the thekadaran of liquor at Muzaifarnagar have taken the theka at a very high price, \vhicli fact raises a suspicion that dishonesty and illegality will be committed, as there is no method by which the price may be paid to Government except by earning it by illegal means. It has also come to knowledge that although these thekedars obtained liquor at Es. 2-4-0 per bottle they charge fancy prices from customers. People do not complain for the price so much as for the fact that even after paying a handsome price they do not get liquor of the strength which, the Government has fixed, namely, 65 per cent. Tlisit the liquor is being diluted with water is proved by the fact that the liquor which, was seized by the Collector in the preceding days contained diluted liquor of the strength of 46 per cent. It is hoped that the excise Commissioner, U. P. will attend to this matter. " Again in its combined issue of 11 and 18-7-1951 it published an editorial note in which after pointing out how liquor was being openly sold in the district and city of Muzaffarnagar contrary to rules, it was stated: "some time ago the Collector and the Chairman, District Board, seined some liquor from, the thckedar's place. It was proved to be diluted with water. "
(3.) THE applicant's case is that the matter published in the issue of 27-6-1951 and 11/18-7-1951 was published with a view to prejudice the applicant before the public and before the Court and there was an attempt to fore-judge the case against the applicant while it was pending in Court. On behalf of the opposite parties it has been contended that the articles complained of do not constitute contempt of Court and that, in any case, after the amendment of Article 19 (2} the restrictions placed upon the right of freedom of expression by the old law of contempt of Court could not be said to be reasonable within the meaning of the amended Article 19 (2) and as such the opposite parties could not be held guilty of contempt of Court. After hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the opposite parties a petition accompanied by an affidavit has been sent to the Court by post by opposite party 2 in which it is stated that the opposite party 2 is a secretary of the Saharanpur National Trading Co. Ltd. , Meerut--the company which manages and conducts the paper "hindustan Weekly Meerut" and that he is concerned only with the general office routine of the newspaper office in his capacity as Secretary of the company and is not concerned with the publication of the offending items; that under Article 215 of the Indian constitution the High Court can punish for contempt of itself and cannot commit for contempt of courts subordinate to it; that the affidavit of Lakhan Singh is incomplete inasmuch as it has not been mentioned therein as to who was in contempt and what are the attending circumstances and lastly that if contempt was at all committed it was of a very minor and technical nature and was likely to be overlooked.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.