Diwan Chand Chaudhry vs K. Narender

Harnam Singh, J.—In this case notice was issued to Shri K. Narender to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of Court on the petition of Chaudhry Dewan Chand. President District Congress Committee, Simla. Shri K. Narender is the editor, printer and publisher of Partap Newspaper, Delhi. On the report of Dr. N. L. Verma, Dentist of Simla the Simla Police registered a case under s. 406, Penal Code, against Chaudhry Diwan Chand petitioner and his son Shri Narender Nath. The report was made on 27th June 1949, and Shri Narender Nath was arrested at Kalka on the same day. In the investigation of that case the police raided the Local Congress Office and from there took into possession certain documents. The police also searched the house of Chaudhry Dewan Chand in village Dhilwan, Hosharpur District. After having completed the investigation the police recommended to the District Magistrate, Simla, that the report made by Dr. N. L. Verma was false, with the result that the case against Chaudhry Diwan Chand and Shri Narender Nath was dropped and a complaint under Ss. 182 and 211, Penal Code, was instituted against Dr N. L. Verma.

The case states that during the pendency of the investigation Shri K. Narendra respondent published articles in the Partap newspaper on 1st July 1949. 17th July 1949, 20th July 1949 and 6th May 1950 which amount to contempt of Court. Mr. Harbans Singh Guiral, learned counsel for the petitioner, frankly concedes that there is nothing in the news-item appearing in the Partap newspaper of 1st July 1949, which comes within the law of contempt. Then the news-item appearing in the Partap newspaper of 20th of July 1949 reproduces the report made by Mr. Balwant Singh Under Secretary Rehabilitation Department Punjab State with regard to the inspection of Evacuee Property Accounts maintained by the Assistant Custodian, Simla. Mr. H S. Gujral, however, urges that the words "It can, therefore, be asked whether these articles were also taken for ruined refugees" refer to the embezzlement case against Choudhry Diwan Chand initiated on the report of D. N. L. Verma and tend to prejudice mankind against Chaudhry Diwan Chand and Shri Narander Nath, Shri K. Narendra, however, has placed on the record of this case a copy certified to be true, of the report made by Mr. Balwant Singh, Under Secretary, Rehabilitation Department, Punjab States, Paragraph NO. 1 of that report reads:

A large number of articles, (vide list A enclosed) were given free to Chaudhry Diwan Chand, President, City Congress Committee, Simla (Reference p 104 of file 4-1) Even an assessment of their value was not made. In the past whenever evacuee property was delivered to Chaudhry Divan Chand for distribution to refugees its value had always been assessed by the Assistant Custodian. The list contains items such as Silken clothes 79, tiffin carriers 3, a small carpet etc. It is questionable whether these articles are meant for destitute refugees

The news-item dated 20th July 1949 is textually the same as para 1 of the report of Mr Balwant Singh and on a fair reading of this news item, I am definite that nothing that is said in this news item tends to prejudice humanity against Chaudhry Diwan Chand.

But in the news-item appearing in the Partap newspaper on 6th May 1950, Dr. N. L. Verma is described as ''Shahid Congress Leader'' and it is said that this publication was deliberately designed to create an atmosphere of sympathy for Dr. N L. Verma and to mobilise public opinion in his favour. Shri K. Narendra in the written statement filed by him in this Court stated that he was not before aware of the offending publication; that it was inserted in the ordinary course of business as a news item, that he had no interest in the action against Dr. N. L. Verma and that the words "Shahid Congress Leader" were not used by the writer with any idea of prejudicing the trial. Indeed, Shri K. Narendra maintains in the written statement that the word "Shahid" is a misprint for the word '' Mash-hoor" used in the body of the news-item.

Applying, however, the test laid down by Lord Hardwicke in Roack v. Garven, (1742) 26 E. R. 683 (2 AT K 469) I entertain no doubt that the words "Shahid Congress leader" used in the heading of the news item amount to a contempt of Court. In that case Lord Hardwicke said :

There are three different sorts of contempt. One kind of contempt is scandalising the Court itself. 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. There may be, likewise, a contempt of Court in abusing parties who are concerned in causes there. Further, there may be also a contempt of Court in prejudicing mankind against persons before the cause is heard.

And this brings mo to the news item appearing in the Partap of 17th July 1919. In that publication with reference to the investigation of the criminal case under S. 405 against Chaudhry Diwan Chand and his son Shri Narandra Nath it was said;

in this connection a police officer has stated that on the completion of the investigation sensational disclosures are expected,

Now, I cannot help expressing my strong disapproval of the suggestion contained in the offending passage that in the course of the investigation of the criminal case under S 406, Penal Code, sensational disclosures likely to damage the reputation of the petitioner and the District Congress Committee will take place. This suggestion, which seems to me sufficiently apparent on a perusal of the news-item in question ought never to have been made and I think that there has been that which to use the language of Lord Hardwicke prejudices mankind before the cause is heard and thereby prevents a fair trial of the cause.

Finding as I do that the respondent has been guilty of contempt of Court I now pass on the question of punishment. In Parashuram Detaram v. Emperor, A. I. R. (32) 1945 P. C. 134: (I. L. R. 1945 Bom. 950), Lord Goddard said: "The summary power of punishment for contempt should be used very sparingly and only in serious cases." The question is whether in this case the summary power of punishment for contempt should be used. From what I have said above it appears that the contempt committed is not serious. I do not think that it was the intention of the respondent to interfere with the due course of justice though the offending publications undoubtedly had that tendency. That being so, the committal of the respondent is out of the question. Considering, however, that the offending publications had a tendency to interfere with the due course of justice I record the formal conviction of the respondent and give him a warning that if any such publication appears in future, a serious view of the matter will be taken. In view of the circumstances of the case I make no order as to the costs of this application.