LexA. K. GOPALAN AND ANOTHER versus NOORDEEN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
410 A. K. GOPALAN AND ANOTHER •.. J'TOORDEEN September 15, 1969 [S. M. SIKRI, G. K. MITTER AND.P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, JJ.] Co111e11ipt of Court's Act (32 of _1952) ss. 3 & 4----Murder-First in/or111ation Re;>ort lodged-Statement charging for niurder 1nadf!-Ar.rest o: accused tl1'·reafter-After arrest stoten1ent published in 1u:wspe.per- Whe11 r·on1en101 cu111n1itted. I · A first information report was lodged on Sept. 11, 1967 regarding the loss c!' life of a person when two groups ·of people clashed. ()n Sept, 20, 1967 the first appellant made_ a statement charging one of 1hc grGups being guilty of deliberate conspiracy to comrhit the murder and alleging that a prominent n1embcr of that party hdd giYen instructions for this. The responden1 along \vith his hvo brothers \Vas arrested on Sept . .23, 1967 and on the next day the MagiStrate remanded the accused to police custody. Jn its issue dated Sept. 23. 1967 --a-..ne\\'spaper of which the sec~1nd appel- lant was the editor printed the stateffie"nt~of the first appellant. Later on an the thre.? ac..:uscd were produced hefore the Magistrate. The respon- dent filed a petition under ss. 3 and ·4 of the Contempt of Court's Act, l 952 ag:til)St the first appellant, second appellant and the printer of,, the ne\\·spapers. The High Court,,found all the persons gµilty of contempt of court. Jn uppeal by certificati: obtained by the first and second appellants this Court, HELD :-(Per Full Court) :-The second appellant v.'f\s guilty of contempt of court. as proceedings in ·, court were imminent on Sept. 23, 1967 \Vhen the statement was publisheJ in the ne\vspaper. When the accused had already ,been ar'rested on Septen1ber 23, 1"969 in connection \\ith a serious cognizable case proceedings in~ a court were imn1incnt on that <late. The fact that the police 1night. af~er investigation, come to the conclusion that the accused was innocent, would not 1nakc the pro- ceedings any the . less imminent. To advance the day of im1ninence to the day when the police makes a report under s. 173 Cr. P.C. would do untold harm to those who may actually '.Je ultimately prosecuted. f418 ll-D (Per Sikri and Jaganmohan Reddy. JJ.) :-The jirst appellant was not guilty of conten1pt of court "as there \vas no evidence that any proceedings in a court were imminent on the date \\rhen t.he statement was made. The lodging of a firs_t information report does not by itself establish that pro- ceedings in a court were imminent. It would depend on the facts proved in a particulaT case whether the proceedings are imminent or not. As far as the first appellant was concerned the relevant date was Sept. 20. 1967 when he made the statement and not Sept. 25. 1967 when the newsoaper published the stat~ment. There was no evidence that the first appellant was instrumental in getting this statement published on Sect. 25, 1967. Even the accused were not arrested till September 23. 1967. and ordinarily until ·an accused is atresfed it cannot 'be said that any proceed- ings in a court are imminent against that person because he may never be arrested or he may be arrested after a 1apse of months or•years. [416 E, F; 417 A-Cl ' A B c D E F G H A, K, GOPALAN V. NOORDEEN (Sikri, J.) 411 A ,\urendrc Mohanty v. State of Orissa Cr. A No. 107 of 1956 dt 23. J -1961, relied on. · !J ~ould be an undue restriction on the -liberty of free speech to Jay down tnat even before any arrest has been made there should be no com- ~ents on the fa~ts of a particular case. In some case no doubt, especiaJly in cases of pubhc scandal regarding companies, it is the duty of a free press to comment on such topic so as to bring 1hem to the attention of B tne public. L417 DJ c D R. v. S«Vundranayagan and Walker, [1968] 3 All E.k. 4?o, refe red to. (Per Mitter. J. dissenting) :-A contempt of court may be COP1mitted by a person when he knows or has good reason to believe that crimiruu proceedings are immi11f'nt. The test is \.Vhcthef the circumstances in \Vhich the alleged contemnor n1akes the statemL-nt are such that a person of ordinary prudence would be of opinion that criminal proceedings would SOOn-be launched. Th~ first appellant must have realised on September 20, 1967 that the investigation by the police was sure to lead to cogni~ zance of the offence being taken by a Magistrate and prosecution of some persons for the offence of culpable homicid~. 'fhe :f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.