SUKHDEV SINGH SODHI Vs. THE CHIEF JUSTICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an unusual application asking for a transfer of certain contempt proceedings from the Pepsu High Court to any other High Court and, in the alternative, asking that at least the matter should not be heard by two of the Judges of that High Court who are named. This at once raises a question about our jurisdiction to order such a transfer.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the applicant relied on Procedure Code. Briefly his reasoning was this. Section 527 authorises the transfer of any "case" from one High Court to another whenever it is made to appear to the Supreme Court that such transfer is expedient for the ends of justice. The word "case" is not defined but "offence" is defined in section 4(o) to mean "any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force." Contempt is punishable under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, therefore it is an offence punishable by a law which is in force; consequently, it is an offence. Being an offence it is triable under the Criminal Procedure Code because section 5 makes the Code application not only to the trial of offenses under the Indian Penal Code but also to the trial of offenses against "other laws". As it is a matter triable under the Criminal Procedure Code it must be a "case" within the meaning of section 527 and accordingly the section can be invoked here.

(3.) THIS has long been the view in India. In 1867 Peacock C.J. laid down the rule quite broadly in these words the re Abdool and Mahtab, (1867) 8 W.R. C. 32 at 33.) :