- (1.) THE facts of the case briefly are that Sri Padma Kant Malviya, opposite party No. 1, owns two houses situated in the same compound in Lukerganj, Allahabad. He himself is residing in one of them and had let out the other to Sri Harjiwan Das Nagar, a dealer in fountainpens. The main gate in the boundary wall of the compound is towards the south, and there are two gates towards the west. One of these two gates used to remain closed but the other one, which is nearer the residence of Sri Harjiwan Das Nagar, used mostly to remain open for egress and ingress. Close to this gate is the bungalow of Sri Baij Nath Kapoor, who in August 1949 was the President of the Allahabad City Congress Committee. Sri Nagar was a friend of Sri Kapoor, and the two were accustomed to visit the houses of each other using for this purpose the gate opposite the latter's house.
(2.) ON 24-8-1949 there appears to have been some trouble over the closing of this gate, or wicket as it may more appropriately be called. On 25th of August Sri Nagar moved an application under section 145, Criminal P. C. against the opposite party No. 1, alleging that there was a dispute concerning this wicket. A report from, the police was called for, an order for the attachment of the gate was made, and a date was fixed for the production of evidence by both the parties. The order attaching the gate was served on the opposite party No. 1 on 25-8-1949. It is alleged that subsequent to this date a pamphlet was printed and published in Hindi with the title 'congress janon se ek appeal' (an appeal to the members of the Congress ). This pamphlet purported to describe in some detail a dispute that took place at about 7-30 in the evening of 24-8-1949 between Sri Baij Nath Kapoor and Sri Dhara Singh, Sub-Inspector in charge of the City Kotwali, on the one hand and the opposite party No. 1 on the other. It also purported to describe another dispute that took place at about 11 in the night on the same date, when it is said that Sri Kapoor, Sri Nagar and Sri Dhara Singh had some further talk with the opposite party No. 1. It is alleged in this pamphlet that Sri Baij Nath Kapoor was abusing his position as President of the City Congress Committee, that he had taken the Sub-Inspector of police along with him, and that he and Sri Nagar had used strong and unbecoming language against the opposite party No. 1, whose conduct on both these occasions was that of a gentleman. This pamphlet was printed at the Abhudya Press of which the opposite party No. 1 is the proprietor and keeper and the opposite party No. 2 is the Manager.
(3.) SRI Nagar moved the learned City Magistrate on 2-9-1949 to report the matter to this Court, as the contents of the pamphlet purported to affect the decision of the case which had been instituted at his instance under Section 145 of the Code and was then pending before the City magistrate. A copy of the pamphlet was sent to the learned City Magistrate himself on 3-9-1949 in a cover on which the address of the City Magistrate is said to have been in the handwriting of the opposite party No. 1. The learned City Magistrate was not prepared to accept the contention of the opposite parties that the pamphlet was written before the institution of the case, because it contained a reference to news item published in the issue of the Leader dated 28-8-1949. The learned Magistrate thought that the pamphlet contained a version of the happenings of an event which was 'sub judice', and that its publication' was likely to prejudice the fair hearing of the case. He has made special reference to the passages starting with the last paragraph on page 4 of the pamphlet which, according to him, were calculated to prejudice the minds of the witnesses and of the general public against the merits of a pending judicial proceeding. In his opinion the opposite parties were guilty of the commission of a serious type of contempt of Court.;