HARPHOOL SINGH Vs. RANBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case arises out of a reference made by the District Judge, Meerut, to the Court for initiating contempt proceedings against the opposite parties.

(2.) IN short, the relevant facts are that inspite of a stay order passed on 31-1-1976 by the learned District Judge, the alleged contemners demolished the wall which was the subject matter of proceedings under section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The wall is said to have been demolished on 11-3-1976 flouting the stay order. The learned District Judge called upon the alleged contemners to show cause why the matter be not referred to the High Court. After an enquiry the learned District Judge referred the matter to this Court by his order dated 31-1-1978, recommending that contempt proceedings be initiated against the opposite parties.

(3.) IT was next argued that as Article 215 of the Constitution lays down that all High Courts are courts of record, a High Court has been given unfettered power to punish contempt of a subordinate court and, therefore, the question of limitation would not arise. I do not agree with this contention. Article 215 no doubt empowers every High Court to punish contempt of a court subordinate to it, but the Contempt of Courts Act lays down how that power has to be exercised. Article 215 of the Constitution and relevant provisions of theContempt of Courts Act have to be read together. The High Court cannot take cognizance even of contempt of itself if the period of one year has already elapsed.