When jurisdiction of high court to take action for contempt of subordinate court is not barred?
In Bathina
Ramakrishna Reddy v. State of Madras [AIR 1952 SC 149 : 1952
SCR 425 : 1952 Cri LJ 832] this Court examined the contention
that the publication of an article attributing corruption to a
judicial officer was not cognizable in contempt jurisdiction by
virtue of Section 2(3) of the Contempts of Courts Act, 1953,
which provided that:
“No High Court shall take cognizance of a
contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of
a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an
offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code.”
32. The contention before this Court was that the allegations
made in the article constituted an offence under Section 499 IPC
and, that therefore, cognizance of such offence under the
Contempts of Courts Act was barred. Repelling the contention,
Mukherjea, J. said: (SCR p. 429)
“In our opinion, the sub-section referred to above
excludes the jurisdiction of High Court only in cases
where the acts alleged to constitute contempt of a
subordinate court are punishable as contempt under
specific provisions of the Indian Penal Code but not
where these acts merely amount to offences of other
descripttion for which punishment has been provided
for in the Indian Penal Code. This would be clear from
the language of the sub-section which uses the words
„where such contempt is an offence‟ and does not say
„where the act alleged to constitute such contempt is an
Ramakrishna Reddy v. State of Madras [AIR 1952 SC 149 : 1952
SCR 425 : 1952 Cri LJ 832] this Court examined the contention
that the publication of an article attributing corruption to a
judicial officer was not cognizable in contempt jurisdiction by
virtue of Section 2(3) of the Contempts of Courts Act, 1953,
which provided that:
“No High Court shall take cognizance of a
contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of
a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an
offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code.”
32. The contention before this Court was that the allegations
made in the article constituted an offence under Section 499 IPC
and, that therefore, cognizance of such offence under the
Contempts of Courts Act was barred. Repelling the contention,
Mukherjea, J. said: (SCR p. 429)
“In our opinion, the sub-section referred to above
excludes the jurisdiction of High Court only in cases
where the acts alleged to constitute contempt of a
subordinate court are punishable as contempt under
specific provisions of the Indian Penal Code but not
where these acts merely amount to offences of other
descripttion for which punishment has been provided
for in the Indian Penal Code. This would be clear from
the language of the sub-section which uses the words
„where such contempt is an offence‟ and does not say
„where the act alleged to constitute such contempt is an
offence‟.”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Delivered on: June 01, 2016
CRL.A. 723/2014
REKHA ..... Appellant
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
Judgment Delivered on: June 01, 2016
CRL.A. 723/2014
REKHA ..... Appellant
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
https://www.lawweb.in/2016/06/when-jurisdiction-of-high-court-to-take.html
