P DAMODARAN Vs. CHERKALAM ABDULLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The preliminary point to be decided in this case is whether the proceedings for contempt is barred by limitation in view of section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), Section 20 of the Act reads as follows:

(2.) Here, admittedly, no action is taken under articles 129 or 215 of the Constitution of India, but, notice is issued on the basis of an application filed by an aggrieved party and the only disputed question is when proceedings are said to have been initiated for the purpose of calculating the period of limitation under section 20 of the Act. The learned counsel, when preliminary objection was filed, relied on the decision of the two member bench decision in Om Prakash jaiswal's case (supra) in support of the contention. During argument, the learned counsel for the respondent fairly pointed out the three member bench decision in Pallav Sheth's case (supra). After considering the contentions and considering the word 'initiate', Apex Court held that in a civil contempt, filing of an application by an aggrieved party and in the case of criminal contempt filing of an application through the Advocate General will be considered as 'initiated'. The Apex Court held as follows:

(3.) In this case, petitioner filed the application to bring to the notice of the court regarding the alleged contempt in time, I,e within one month of the alleged date of incident. At the time of filing the application, correct address of the first respondent was given, but this court delayed in posting the case and by the undue delay in posting the case by the court for no fault of the petitioner, they cannot suffer. The maximum 'Actus curiae neminem gravabit' an act of the court shall prejudice no man is well accepted in Indian jurisprudence as held by the Apex Court in Rajesh D. Darbar and others v. Narasingrao Krishnaji Kulkarni and others ((2003) 7 SCC 219) and South Eastern Coalfields Ltd v. State of MP and others ((2003) 8 SCC 648). In any event, in view of the Apex Court's decision in Pallav Sheth's case (supra) that action is initiated on the date of filing of the complaint, we are of the view that this contempt petition cannot be closed as barred by limitation.