P L D 1964 Dacca 241 (PLP)

RAHMAN, J.‑‑This suo moto Rule against Moulana Abdur Rashid Tarkabagish was issued by this Court on 18th of May 1958. It first came up for hearing before us on the 24th of June 1958. The Moulana in answer to the said Rule showed cause by filing an affidavit in‑ which he denied that he had ever made any statement to the purport reported in the "Morning News" in its issue of the 2nd of May 1958, and it was contended on his behalf that this Court should discharge the Rule, because there was no other evidence before it to show that the Moulana had, in fact, made the offending statement which had been mentioned in the Rule issued by this Court.

2. Mr. Salam Khan appearing on his behalf had vigorously contended then that contempt proceedings being criminal pro ceedings should be tried in the same manner as other criminal proceedings, and the rules of such criminal proceedings should also apply. On that date we delivered a judgment dealing with the said contentions, and held that the proceedings were sui generis in nature partaking of some of the elements of both civil and criminal proceedings, but really constituting neither, that there was no fixed formula for contempt proceedings, and that technical accuracies were not required, nor were we bound by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or by the technicalities of ordinary criminal proceedings ; but nevertheless being Courts of justice we would normally follow the fundamental rules for the ascertainment of the truth by giving the fullest opportunity to the person accused of defending himself and of putting forward his case with as much, if not, more fairness than we would in an ordinary trial before us.

3. Upon those considerations, we decided that it was of the utmost importance not only for this Court, but also for the general litigant public as well as in the interest of the alleged contemner himself that the matter should be properly investigated.

4. It was not disputed in the affidavit filed by the Moulana that he had, in fact, granted an interview to a correspondent of the "Morning News", but he complained that the views expressed by him had been materially garbled by the said correspondent. The learned Deputy Legal Remembrancer appearing on behalf of the State furnished us with the name and address of the said correspondent and suggested that he might be examined. It also appeared to us then that the newspaper could not absolve itself of the liability of publishing any matter which amounted to a contempt of Court even if it was merely quoting the words of somebody else. In those circumstances we decided to issue a similar Rule for contempt on the Editor, Manager, Printer and Publisher of the "Morning News", as also directed the said Rule to be served upon the said correspondent, who was further summoned to appear before this Court and to give evidence in this matter, as also to produce other relevant papers, books or documents, if any, which he might have used in connection with the said interview.

5. In answer to this latter Rule, the Editor, one Mr. Badruddin, and the Manager, Printer and Publisher, one Mr. Lawrence have also showed cause by filing affidavits herein, and the said correspondent Mr. Tasiqul Alam Khan has also appeared and given evidence in this case. He was examined‑in- chief by this Court itself, but he was cross‑examined at great length by the learned Advocate appearing for the Moulana, and re‑examined by the learned counsel for the Editor, Manager, Printer and Publisher of the "Morning News".

6. The Editor in his affidavit state that the publication in the "Morning News" was made according to the typed report furnished by the said correspondent Mr. Tasiqul Alam Khan, who is one of its senior staff reporters, and had been with them for more than six years incharge of the political news section. He was, according to the Editor, a highly qualified, responsible and honest person, and has no enmity or bias against the said Moulana, and, therefore, he accepted the report presented by the said correspondent, and also published the same without any scrutiny whatsoever, as he had no reason to think that he would misquote or misrepresent the Moulana. He accepted the responsibility for the publication, but stated that by the said publication it was never intended to lower the prestige or dignity of the judiciary or to interfere in any way with the course of justice. According to him, his newspaper had all along endeavoured to uphold the prestige of the judiciary, and to invite unequivocal condemnation from everybody for attempts made to cast any doubt on the high traditions of the judiciary, and he concluded by tendering an unconditional apology to the Court for the publication made, which he stated had been made in good faith. The affidavit of the Manager, Printer and Publisher is also to the same effect, and he also has tendered an unconditional apology.

7. We shall deal later with the evidence of Tasiqul Alam Khan, but before we do so, we have first to deal with some of the points urged by Mr. Salam Khan on behalf of the Moulana. Although we had fairly exhaustively dealt with his contention that proceedings in contempt were criminal proceedings and should be dealt with like ordinary criminal matters in our judg ment of the 24th of June 1958, he has again considered it necessary to urge the same point before us though for a somewhat different purpose. Apart from the propriety of urging the same point over again in spite of the fact that this Court had in this very matter given a decision on the point earlier, we are constrained to observe that the object with which the argument was again pressed before us is, if anything, a direct challenge to the correct ness of our earlier decision. Mr. Salam Khan sought to contend that in contempt proceedings the technicalities not only of pro cedure or of the law of evidence applicable to ordinary criminal trials should apply, but further that even the rules of prudence which are ordinarily followed in criminal trials should also be applicable to contempt proceedings. Thus, the rule of prudence that the evidence of an accomplice should not be relied upon unless corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence, should also be applied to contempt proceedings, and the evidence of Tasiqul Alam Khan, who, it was urged, was really in the position of an accomplice, should be totally rejected.

8. Apart from the decisions upon which he relied for this very purpose on the earlier occasion, the only other new decision that he has placed before us in this connection is a decision of the Privy Council in the case of Andre Paul Terence Ambard v. The Attorney‑General of Trinidad and Tobago (40 C W N 801 (P C)), where Lord Atkin while deciding the question as to whether the Privy Council should or should not grant special leave to appeal, and, if so, on what grounds, observed at one place that interferences with the administration of justice when they amount to contempt of Court are "quasi‑criminal acts", and orders punishing them should, generally speaking, be treated as orders in criminal cases, and leave to appeal against them should only be granted on the well known principles on which leave to appeal in criminal cases is given. This observation does not, in our opinion, indicate that thereby their Lordships of the Judicial Committee intended to lay down that contempt proceedings were for all purposes criminal proceedings.

9. We have no wish to repeat what we have already stated in our judgment on the 24th of June 1958. But since the object now sought to be achieved by this argument does not relate to the procedure but to a matter of evidence, we would like to quote here the observations on this point of Woodroffe, J., in the case of Tarit Kanti Biswas, Printer and Publisher of Amrita Bazar Patrika and others (21 C W N 1161). In that case, too, it had been laboured at the Bar to establish that a proceeding in contempt should be decided as a criminal proceeding, and that the same strictness of proof should be observed in those proceedings. With regard to this later question that eminent Judge observed (at page 1185): "As regards the question of proof, no case either civil or criminal should be tried and determined otherwise than according to the law governing it. It is not the fact that civil proceedings may be slack and criminal proceedings must be strict. A dereliction of duty may of course be of greater or less moment according to the nature of the proceeding in which it happens. As regards the standard of proof, I would repeat what was held in Westom v. Peary Mohun Das I L R 40 Cal. 898 that there is but one rule of evidence which in India applies to both civil and criminal trials, and that is contained in the definition of `proved' and `disproved' in section 3 of the Evidence Act, whether the case is civil or criminal, a fact is only proved or disproved if it comes within the terms of that section." We respectfully agree with these observations, and for ourselves hold that we, too, in such proceedings would insist on an equal amount of strictness of proof, and would act with as much prudence in assessing the evidence adduced before us as Court of justice should exercise in all matters before them. But we must again reiterate that we cannot accept that we are bound by any technical considerations in these matters. Indeed, it maybe per tinent to point out that in the case above‑mentioned even Sir Ashutosh Mukherjee, J., who, although he had at some places expressed opinions which have been often sought to be construed as having laid down that the same procedure and the same technicalities should be observed in such proceedings too ; observed with regard to one of them, namely, that a person charged with a contempt may refuse to disclose anything or for that matter to keep silent, in the penultimate paragraph of his judgment, as follows: "The immunity from punishment which the offenders may imagine they enjoy by reason of stolid silence, is most probably of an illusory character."

10. This observation is not without significance. It does not tend to support the view that he had indeed laid down any such wide rule.

11. For these reasons, we are unable to accept either the contention that Tasiqul Alam Khan is in the position of an accomplice in this case, in the sense of being particeps criminis, or that we should not accept his evidence merely because it is not corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence.

12. In the course of his arguments Mr. Salam Khan again placed strong reliance on the dissenting judgment of Monmatha Nath Mukherji, J., in the matter of Tushar Kanti Ghosh, the Editors and others (39 C W N 770). In that case the alleged contemners had been charged with having published in their newspaper a general remark to the effect the learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court found special delight in hobnobbing with the executive. It was not a remark in connection with any pending, anticipated or disposed of proceeding in that Court. It was argued at the Bar in, that case ; firstly, that commitments for scandalisation of Courts had become obsolete ; secondly, that since the remark was not in connection with any cause pending in that Court there was no question of any interference being caused to the administration of justice by that Court which could amount to a contempt ; and thirdly, that in any event general remarks of that character did not prevent the Court in any way from following its normal course. The majority judgment, of course, did not accept any one of these contentions. But Mukherji, J., in his dissenting judgment accepted the first two contentions and dissented from the other members of the Bench.

13. That case was heard in the Calcutta High Court in April 1935, but just a year later the Privy Council in the case of Andre Paul Terence Ambard v. The Attorney‑General of Trinidad and Tcbago, decided in March 1936, pointed out that the observations in the case of McLeod v. St. Aubyn (1899 A C 549), to the effect that committals for contempt of Court for scandalising the Court had become obsolete, had been sadly disproved the next year" fn the case of the Queen v. Gray ((1900) 2 Q B 36). After this authoritative pronouncement of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee, the observations of Mukherji, J., that the decision of Lord Russell in the case of Queen v. Gray had been made without reference to the case of McLeod v. St. Aubyn, and was of no binding effect upon Courts in India, can no longer hold good.

14. With regard to the second question as to whether it is necessary that any cause should be pending to create obstruction to the course of justice, we must observe that the observation of Mukherji, J., should be read only with reference to the facts of that case. There the remarks were absolutely general remarks unconnected with any cause whatsoever in the said Court either expected or pending or disposed of. What the learned Judge actually said in his judgment was that in order to infer that an intention to obstruct the course of justice was present or that there was a tendency to create such obstruc tion by the acts or words complained of, the presence or absence of a cause or proceeding either expected or pending or disposed of, formed a most important factor to be taken into account. The learned Judge, however, clearly held (at page 809) that: "Scandalising the Court with reference to a decided case may bring the decision itself into disrepute by means outside the ordinary course of justice, and may have the effect of deterring the Court from proceeding on the lines on which the Court had proceeded in arriving at the decision." From this observation it is clear that where the words "printed or published or uttered" amounts to a scandalisation of the Court with reference to a decided case or cases, it amounts to a clear contempt of Court. In the present case the remarks complained of are not merely remarks of a general character, but remarks about the manner and method of the disposal of some cases decided in the past when the Muslim League Government was in office, and, therefore, clearly amounted to the scandalisation of the Courts in this Province with reference to decided cases.

15. In this connection we may also refer to the observations of Munir, J., as he then was, in the case of In re : Subrahmanyan, Editor, Tribune and others (A I R 1943 Lah. 329), where he observed: "The principle that the summary proceedings for contempt of Court should not be instituted in respect of what amounts to a technical contempt after the proceedings in the Court have been disposed of, and there is no possibilities of inter ference with the due course of justice applies only to appli cations for proceedings in contempt made by private parties, and not to institution of proceedings by Court. The jurisdiction of the Court exists not only to prevent the mischief in the particular case, but also to prevent similar mischief arising in other cases. Consequently, even when the proceedings before it had been disposed of, the Court can institute proceedings to see whether an article published in connection with the pro ceedings before it was on the date of its publication calculated to interfere with the due course of justice, and to prevent repetition of the same if it amounted to contempt." There is thus no question that if the words used in the case before us have the pernicious tendency of impairing the authority and the dignity of the Courts of justice in this Province by scandalis ing them, then it is no excuse for the person who is responsible for the said publication or who uttered the said words to say that it was in respect of proceedings which had long since concluded in these Courts. It is not necessary that the words used should actually obstruct or interfere with the course of justice and the due administration thereof, but it is sufficient that they should be calculated to have that effect. As to what "calculated" means in this context has been pointed out by our Supreme Court in the recent case of Abdus Salam, Editor, Pakistan Observer and others v. The State (hitherto unreported). Their Lordships have held it to mean that the offending words should be of a nature or character proper or likely to obstruct or interfere in that manner.

16. It is not necessary for us to enter into the question as to whether general remarks unconnected with any cause either expected or pending or disposed of can or cannot prevent a Court of justice, no matter what its character or nature, from following its normal course, for, in the case before us, as we have pointed out the words used are not such general remarks, but remarks concerning proceedings or cases disposed of by the Courts.

17. With regard to the tendency or meaning of the words complained of in the present case, there is no manner of doubt or dispute. The words in no uncertain terms impute that during the regime of the Muslim League the judiciary had been influenced by the Ministry. That is a direct attack upon the independence and integrity of the Courts of justice in this country. Even Mr. Salam Khan was constrained to concede that these words cannot but amount to a serious and gross contempt of Court.

18. The question, therefore, that now arises for our con sideration is as to whether the Moulana is responsible for having uttered these words. It may be pointed out here that soon after this report was published in the "Morning News" on the 2nd of May 1958, the Moulana caused a correction thereof to be published in some of the local dailies including the "Morning News", which published it on the 6th of May 1958. In this it is stated that what the Moulana actually said was that he did not want that those jailed by Courts of law on charges of activities subversive to law and order should be freed, because, in that case the judiciary cannot function independently, and any action like that by the administration would result in chaos. Even in this, how ever, he admitted that he added that if it is proved that any Court on the trial of the prisoners referred to by the NAP during the Muslim League regime had been influenced resulting in injustice there may be a re‑trial. Of course, this is a layman's and not a law yer's point of view. In the affidavit before us, however, he has con tended himself merely by charging that the words published in the "Morning News" were a materially garbled version, and had grievously misreported his views. He does not on oath state what exactly he said, but he asserts that he not only made no statement derogatory either to the dignity or to the independence of the judiciary, but on the other hand, he sought to impress on the importance of upholding the judgments of the Courts of law, for, he is of the firm opinion that the rule of law is essential, and that the rule of law would be meaningless unless the judiciary can act independently with authority and dignity.

19. Mr. Tasiqul Alam Khan, however, has given evidence to the effect that not only the Moulana did categorically say so, but that he also insisted that these things must be published in the paper, namely, about the political prisoners, and that the Muslim League Ministers much influenced the judiciary.

20. Mr. Salam Khan has critically assailed the evidence given by this staff correspondent, and has contended, that he should not be believed ; firstly, because the witness does not appear to be entirely free from bias against the Moulana ; secondly, because his account of the interview is a highly improbable one ; and thirdly, because of his demeanour in the witness box. Next it is contended that the evidence of these witnesses, even if it can be believed, does not exclude the possibility of the witness having misunderstood the Moulana or of having made some confusion with regard to the actual words used by him, particularly, since even, according to the witness, the interview consisted both of formal and informal discussions, and no minutes, had been kept of the informal discussions as they were not intended for public ation. Furthermore, because of the fact that admittedly verbatim minutes or notes were not taken at the interview ; and lastly, because the offending passage which has been printed in bold type and given unusual prominence in the "Morning News" of the 2nd of May 1958, is not, according to the newspaper itself, a quotation of the words of the said Moulana. Although the passages immediately preceding and succeeding the offending portion have been printed within inverted commas the offending portion has not been so included within inverted commas. Mr. Salam Khan has also in this connection asked us to take into account the subsequent conduct of the Moulana in issuing a contradiction, and pointing out the inaccuracies in the report published on the 2nd of May 1958, almost immediately afterwards, and has suggested that this shows that from the very beginning the Moulana was taking the stand that he had been misreported, and that his view had been misrepresented.

21. In the course of the cross‑examination it has also been suggested to the witness that he has sufficient motive to mis represent the Moulana ; firstly, because the newspaper for which he was working was opposed to the views of the political party of which the Moulana was the President ; secondly, because the witness's father's cousin was a rival candidate of the Moulana in the last election; and lastly, because the Moulana had not helped him in getting a posting at Karachi instead of at Rawalpindi for which he had actually approached the Moulana when he got his appointment with the Radio Pakistan. The witness has denied all the suggestions except one that Mr. Abdul Aziz, a practising lawyer at Pabna, was his father's cousin ; but he maintained that he did not even know that the said Mr. Aziz sought election at the last general elections. It appears from the publication in the Dacca Gazette to which our attention was drawn that one Mr. Aziz did contest the same seat from Pabna which was contested by Moulana Tarkabagish. The witness has also consistently maintained that the "Morning News" is an independent newspaper and not allied to any political party. In the absence, however, of any evidence to support any one of these suggestions, we are not inclined to hold that the witness had any particular motive to be based against the Moulana or to seek to misrepresent him in any particular way.

22. The suggestion that the alleged interview spoken of by the witness with the Moulana was not an interview at all, but merely a call by the witness on the Moulana for the purpose of seeking his assistance as a member of the Information Committee of Parliament to obtain his help in getting his posting at Karachi, is again no more than a mere suggestion. We have no evidence before us that the Moulana was even a member of such a Com mittee or that the witness knew that he was a member of the said Committee. Again, it is significant that neither in the con tradiction issued by the Moulana nor in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Moulana has it been suggested that no such interview was granted to the said correspondent. Indeed, the impression formed by reading the affidavit and the contradiction is that what was stated at the interview by the Moulana has been garbled, and he has been misrepresented. If there was no such interview then no question of misrepresenting him could possibly arise. There is no basis, therefore, for these suggestions.

23. It was further suggested to this witness that he was friendly with the Moulana's sons and that this approach was made to the Moulana through his son. The witness denied acquaintance with the Moulana's son. In fact, he stated that he had only seen the Moulana's son on some previous occasions, as also after the interview on this date, but he stated that the previous occasions were either at the University or at rowdy meetings. From this Mr. Salam Khan sought to argue that witness had displayed some kind of hostility towards the Moulana and his son. It may be that the witness could have been less emphatic in the denunciation of his acquaintance with the Moulana's son, but this by itself is not sufficient to convince us that he deliberately intended to cause harm to the Moulana or to misreport him.

24. With regard to the interview itself, the version of this witness is that he in the usual course of his business of keeping his contacts with important political personages, on this morning rang up the Moulana to enquire about the state of his health or to say `hallo' to him and in course of the talk on the phone it was the Moulana who suggested to him that he should come over to see him with regard to the clarifications that he sought over certain questions raised by the NAP. The Moulana also stated that the only time that would be convenient for him to meet the witness was in the morning, for, after 10 O'clock he would not be free. The witness, therefore, immediately rushed to the Moulana's residence in such haste that he could not even wait to get his note‑book which was not handy at that place. He there fore, took merely a piece of paper which had come out of the teleprinter machine and was lying in the office, and rushed to interview the Moulana. At this interview which lasted for about an hour, half an hour was devoted to informal discussions, and then started the formal discussion or the interview itself in right earnest. During this time, the witness has stated, he asked the Moulana certain ques tions, and the Moulana gave straight answers, of which he made some sort of a minute on the piece of paper carried by him. It is, however, admitted by the witness that no verbatim minutes of the answers given by the Moulana were recorded. Indeed, he stated that he had developed some kind of a system of his own, by which he summarised the questions and the answers. In answer to the Court, however, the witness stated that as the question of the release of the political convicts was at the time a most controversial issue, and since it was rumoured that the Awami Party had agreed to release the political convicts, and, fn fact, recommended to the Governor that the mercy petitions which had already been filed should be accepted, this was the issue on which he sought to interview the Moulana, the President of the said Awami Party. To quote his own words "Otherwise, there was no point to meet him on the other occasions".

25. With regard to the system developed by him, he stated that the system was to write down the salient points including the progress of the speech, and in this way, he alleges, that he recorded the portion in the slip of paper which has been ringed by him in red pencil and marked Exh. 1: .Muslim League .. In that ease fresh trial should be conducted . . whole sale release . . release . ." He further stated that the report published in the newspaper was actually the `story' that he built upon the basis of his notes which he took on that scrap of paper from the tele-printer ; but the report as written out by him and published in the newspaper, did not follow even the sequence in which the notes were made, nor were the bold letterings or headlines given in the publication actually made in the "Morning News" either in his minutes or in the report that he submitted to the newspaper. But apart from this, the written up report as given by him was fully published in the newspaper. It may be noted here that in one of the answers in cross‑examination the witness stated: "My report is on the strength of the note. I can build up a story on the basis of the note and the important portion that I could have taken in Bengali." Again, he stated that: "The report is a verbatim reproduction of what Moulana stated. This never takes place and has never taken place in the world in such interviews." He also admitted in the course of his cross‑examination that he understood the Moulana to be opposed to the release of political convicts, and when he was confronted with the word "wholesale release", used by him in the notes and in the report published in the "Morning News," he admitted that that was his translation, and not the actual words used by the Moulana. But he maintained that he understood the Moulana to say that he was opposed to the release of anyone who had been tried and found guilty by a Court of law. This was in answer to a question put by the Court. It was suggested to him that he might have got confused between the discussions held at the informal portions of the interview. It was further suggested to him that it was the witness that put to the Moulana the question that the demand of the NAP for the release pf the political convicts was on the ground that during Muslim League regime influence was exercised on the judiciary resulting in injustice, and that was not the answer of the Moulana. The witness did not, however, accept the suggestions.

26. We have carefully read the evidence given by this witness. He has beers searchingly cross‑examined not only by the learned Advocate appearing for Moulana Tarkabagish, but has also been asked a few questions by this Court. Although we are not convinced that the witness had any particular animus against the Moulana, or that he deliberately misrepresented the Moulana, yet, it seems to us, that the manner in which he prepared the minutes at the interview and then his final report to the newspaper cannot be described as satisfactory. Although the witness tried to give up the idea that he did not realise the importance of the interview, at the time he went to the interview, he did however, concede that he considered it to be what is called a scoop' in journalistic phraseology, but yet he went to the place armed only with a scrap of paper lying about in the office. The only excuse given by him for doing so is that at that time his note‑book was not with him nor any other note‑book was available in his separate office, although that separate office was within the general office of the "Morning News". In any event, no explan ation is forthcoming as to why even after the Moulana had agreed over the telephone to the interview he made to attempt to procure a note‑book or as to what was there to prevent him from going home first and bringing his own note‑book, particularly, as he admits that the residence of the Moulana is on the way from his residence to his office, and that his office is within ten minutes' walk of his residence.

27. The fact again that the witness did not take any verbatim note in his minutes but admittedly only recorded what he con sidered to be the salient points of the speech or discourse held with the person interviewed does not convince us that the possibility of a mistake being made thereby was altogether excluded. We particularly asked the witness if after the interview he read over his minutes to the Moulana ; but he stated that he did not do so, although at one stage he sought to suggest that the Moulana uttered many other things which, if he had published them, would have been more disastrous for the Moulana. It seems to us that if he could realise then that what the Moulana was saying likely to be disastrous for the Moulana, surely it was incumbent upon him to have taken the precaution to read over the minutes to the Moulana, and to point out to him that these matters were likely to be of disastrous consequence not only to the Moulana, but also to his own news paper.

28. Again, the fact that the offending passage has not been represented in the publication made in the newspaper to be a question of the actual works of the Moulana, cannot be over looked, particularly since the preceding and the succeeding paragraphs in the very same publication have been put within quotation marks. This clearly indicates that although this was considered by the Editor or the person responsible for editing the newspaper to be an item of news of such importance as to be put in bold type, yet they were careful enough not to represent it to be the actual words used by the Moulana. These by themselves are sufficient reasons, in our view, for holding that it has not been proved that the Moulana actually was the person who uttered these offending words, and if that is so, he cannot be held liable for the same or be committed for having scandalised the judiciary in this Province.

29. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Editor, Manager, Printer and Publisher of the "Morning News" however, suggested that since‑ there was no categorical denial by the Moulana of having uttered the offending words, the evidence of the witness Tasiqul Alam Khan that the Moulana did actually say these words, had been sufficiently corroborated. It will be apparent from the contradiction issued by the Moulana, and published by the "Morning News" on the 6th of May 1958, as well as the affidavit filed before us that what the Moulana had stated was that he did not utter these words, but what he said was something materially different, namely, that if it is proved that the judiciary had been interfered with, there should be a re‑trial. It is true that this too discloses a state of mind of a person who is prepared to accept that the judiciary is open to influence by the executive, but we cannot punish persons merely for Their mental aberrations, if they have not expressed their minds in words which amount to a contempt of Court, for we are concerned only with the tendency for the words used, and not with what the person using the words thought in his mind. If the words used are likely to have the tendency to obstruct the administration of justice or to impair, in any way, the confidence that the people in this Province repose in the independence and integrity of the judiciary, then and only then can a committal for contempt be inflicted.

30. We do not wish to repeat that it is of the utmost importance for all concerned and particularly, those who presume to be leaders of political parties in the country to remember that nothing should be said or done which would in any way impair the independence of the judiciary or lower it in the estimation of the people, for, as admitted by the Moulana himself in his affidavit, the judiciary under our Constitution are the upholder and preservers of the liberties and rights of the people, and noth ing should be done to shake the confidence that the people have in the judiciary that it will impartially without fear or favour adjudicate upon the rights of the citizens. It is unfortunate that the Moulana who is stated to be the President of a political party which was until recently incharge of the Government of the Province, should have even countenanced the possibility of the judiciary being in any way influenced by any extraneous con sideration. We would have expected that the Moulana since he was opposed to the release of the political convicts, should have stated in no uncertain terms that there could not be any question of the judiciary having been influenced either in the past or at any other time, and, as such, there could be no question of any re‑trial of such political convicts. Even as a layman he should have known that decisions of Courts of law are not re‑opened on grounds of political expediency, and that the only war to re‑open the decision of a Court of law is to question it before a higher competent Court.

31. Be that as it may, since the Moulana was accused here of having uttered the words set out in the Rule calling upon him to show cause in this matter, and since we have come to the con clusion that it has not been proved in accordance with law that it was he who actually uttered the said words, the Rule must as against him be discharged, as we feel that his admission in his contradiction published in the "Morning News" on the 6th of May 1958, that what he had actually stated at this particular interview to the correspondent Tasiqul Alam Khan was that if it is proved that there had been interference with the judiciary, there should be a re‑trial could have reasonably been interpreted to imply that he also accepted that the possibility of the judiciary being influenced was not ruled out, we disallow him any costs in this matter, for, he was himself to some extent responsible for giving this erroneous impression to the said correspondent.

32. Now, to come to the case of the Editor, Manager, Printer and Publisher of the "Morning News", they have, of course, in their affidavits tendered an unconditional apology to this Court for the publications that were made. Tasiqul Alam Khan, has of course, stated that he himself wrote out the report containing the offending passage, but we cannot altogether ignore the careless and negligent manner in which they have acted in this matter. Tasiqul Alam in his evidence stated that he did not even bother to read the contradiction issued by the Moulana although he took particular care to read the condemnations of the statement issued by Mr. Hashemuddin and Mr. Azizul Huq, and realised that he should preserve his scrap of paper on which he had recorded the minutes of the interview. Yet, he maintains that he was not curious to know whether the Moulana had or had not issued any contradiction. He has, of course, explained that during this time from the 6th to the 9th of May 1958, he was actually busy with his own affairs, for, he was about to leave for Rawalpindi to take up his new appointment with the Radio Pakistan. He did not however, leave East Pakistan until the 29th of May 1958. Again, both the Editor, Manager, Printer and Publisher of the newspaper have stated in their affidavits that they accepted without scrutiny whatever their correspondent had written out, and published the same with the fullest confidence that the said correspondent would not make an incorrect report. This, however, cannot be accepted without qualifications, for, it is conceded by Tasiqul Alam that the headlines and the bold letterings were not his. So, some one responsible for editing news items in this newspaper must have put the headlines and the bold letterings. The offending passage is in bold letters. So, they could not possibly have escaped the attention of the News Editor or whoever it was who edited this particular item. Any person who can be considered to be fit to be placed in charge of editing items of news on the news paper's Editorial Board, could not thus have failed to notice the gravity of the charge made in that passage. It is idle, therefore, to contend now that the said passage was published without any scrutiny whatsoever, and we are not prepared to accept the same. Not that it would have been any different event if there had been any scrutiny, for, it is now too well‑settled to be doubted that the Editor, Manager, Printer and Publisher of the newspaper must accept the fullest responsibility for everything that is published. It is no excuse or justification to say that it is a quotation from somebody else. Even the repetition of a contempt is a contempt. In the facts that have now trans pired ; since we have held that these words were not uttered by Moulana Tarkabagish ; those concerned with the preparation of the report and printing and publishing the same must, therefore be held responsible for the said words.

33. We have, of course, taken due notice of the fact that all these persons have tendered unconditional apology to this Court for what they say was done in good faith without any intention whatsoever of impairing the dignity of the authority of the Courts in the country or of casting any reflection whatsoever on the judici ary; but at the same time, we cannot altogether excuse the Editor, Manager, Printer and Publisher of the said newspaper for the want of care they have displayed, in this matter, by rushing to the press without even taking the trouble to check up the correctness of the report or its authenticity either by a reference to the Moulana or even their own correspondent.

34. We, therefore, make the Rule absolute as against the Editor, Manager, Printer and Publisher of the "Morning News", and taking every circumstances in their favour into account, in mitigation of their offence, we fine them each Rs. 100, or in default, simple imprisonment for two weeks each.

35. So far as Tasiqul Alam Khan is concerned, he had also tendered an unconditional apology and thrown himself at the mercy of this Court. In his case we have already held that he did not misrepresent or misquote the Moulana deliberately, but that the possibility of his having made some confusion between the formal and the informal discussions, and the possibility of his having wrongly minuted the gist or the salient points of what was said by the Moulana not having been altogether excluded, we have held that he did not correctly report what the Moulana had stated. But from what the Moulana himself has stated in the contradiction issued by him and published in the "Morning News" on the 6th of May 1958, we are further of the view that the responsibility for the said confusion might also to some extent have been due to the fact that the Moulana himself did not altogether exclude the possibility of the judiciary being influenced by admitting that if it is proved that the judiciary had been influenced, there should be a re‑trial. For this reason and also because he has, in answer to our summons, without hesitation, come from Rawalpindi to assist us in the present enquiry, we take a lenient view of the matter, accept his apology and impose no punishment upon him.

36. The fines may be accepted if paid in this Court. The Editor, Manager, Printer and Publisher of the "Morning News" will bear their own expenses as also pay the expenses incurred by this Court in the payment of the fare and travelling allowances to Tasiqul Alam Khan.

37. We might also mention here that although the State has been represented before us by Mr. Ghani he did not take any active part in the proceedings before us, as such,' we make no order for costs to the State. Before parting with this case, we cannot help remarking again that in these matters it is the State that should uphold the dignity and authority of the judiciary, and it should not have been left to the judiciary to act suo moto in these matters. CHAKRABORTI, J.‑I entirely agree with my learned brother. S. Q./K. B. A. Order accordingly.