VINAYA CHANDRA MISRA Vs. SACHINDRA KUMAR SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Counsel for the opposite party has raised a preliminary point challenging the jurisdiction of this Court. Learned Counsel pointed out that one part of the utterance i. e. kis idiot ne Advocate banwa diya hai alleged to have been made by the contemner opposite party, is said to constitute contempt of this Court, while the other part of the utterance alleged to have been made and the conduct displayed by the opposite party is said to constitute contempt of his own Court. Placing reliance on Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, learned Counsel for the opposite party urged that this Court cannot take cognizance of either of the two natures of contempts on the application moved by Sri V. C. Misra. Learned Counsel for the opposite party referred to the case Gurcharan Dass v. State of Rajasthan and insisted that the question regarding jurisdiction should be decided before entering into the facts of the case. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also agreed that the point of jurisdiction raised on behalf of the opposite party may be decided first.

(2.) IN support of his first Dart of the argument namely that this Court cannot take cognizance of its own contempt said to have been committed by the opposite party, on the application made by the petitioner, reliance has been placed on Section 15 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, hereafter to be called 1971 Act. which reads thus:

(3.) A reading of the application along with the prayer contained therein leaves no room for doubt that the petitioner has only conveyed information to the Court of the contempt alleged to have been committed by the opposite party. Once the information has reached this Court, it is open to it to take cognizance of it. This part of the argument raised by learned Counsel for the respondent is, therefore wholly devoid of substance and is turned down.