JANARDAN PRASAD GUPTA Vs. O P CHAKARVARTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Dr Janardan Prasad Gupta alleges that Dr,, O. P. Chakravarty, Additional Director of Medical and Health Services and Drugs Controller, Uttar Pradesh, and Dr. Niranjan Prasad, Assistant Drugs Controller, Uttar Pradesh, the two respondents before us, have committed criminal contempt of this Court under sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Clause (c) of Section 2, Contempt of Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and consequently they deserve punishment under Section 12 of the Act.

(2.) IT is not disputed by either side that the alleged contempt was not committed in the face of this Court, so as to fall within the purview of Section 14 of the Act. Similarly, it is not disputed that it lies within the ambit of Section 15 of the Act. The proceedings have not been initiated on its own motion by this Court or on a motion made by the Advocate-General. The petitioner further admits that he has not made the motion with the consent in writing of the Advocate-General. The preliminary objection raised by the respondents is that cognizance of a criminal contempt, other than one falling under Section 14, can be taken by this Court only on its own motion, or on a motion made by the Advocate-General, or on a motion made by any other person, with the consent in writing of the Advocate-General, and in no other manner and since there is non-compliance with the three alternative procedural requirements, therefore, the petition must be ordered to stand dismissed without going into its merits.

(3.) THE preliminary objection raises a short question of law as to the interpretation of Section 15 of the Act This Section reads thus: 15. Cognizance of criminal contempt in other cases: