RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE admitting an application, under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sri Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State of U. P. and others, this Court on 18-7-1984 restrained the opposite parties from investigating the allegations made in the first information report dated 19/20-5-84 as contained in Annexure 'N' to the affidavit filed in support of the application and dated 22-5-1984 as contained in Annexure 'J' to the affidavit. The impact of the above order is that the investigation in respect of the first information reports was stayed by this Court. It is alleged that inspite of the above order, the investigation continued and the Station House officer even after having the information communicated to him,in full disobedience, kept completing the investigation and after doing all formalities pertaining to the aforesaid first information report, ultimately on 13-8-1984 supplied the charge sheet to the Assistant Public Prosecutor. In the contempt application no details have been given about the date and time when the Investigating Officer undertook the investigation after the orders passed by this Court on 18-7-1984. It is also not mentioned in the application that who were the respondents in the application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it is stated at bar that the State of U. P. and the Superintendent of Police were opposite parties nos.1 and nos.2 respectively in the application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, who are also respondents 1 and 2 in the present contempt application. Office has reported that the limitation would expire on 13th August, 1983. The charge sheet was submitted by the Station House Officer, who is also investigating officer, to the Assistant Public Prosecutor on 13-8-1984 and, therefore, it was urged that the opposite parties have committed contempt of this court by wilfully violating the aforesaid order dated 18-7-84 passed in the application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is clear from the averments made in this application that contempt; if any, was committed on August 13, 1984. This application has come up before me today, that is on 23-8-1985.

(2.) SECTION 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act clearly states that no court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is. alleged to have been committed. Thus, section 20 operates as an absolute bar to initiation of contempt proceeding after expiry of one year. The starting point of the limitation is the relevant date on which the contempt is said to have been committed. The provision of section 20 of the above Act is a provision of repose and it bars the remedy. In Baradakanta Misra v. Mr. Justice Gati Krishna, C. J. of the Orissa High Court, AIR 1974 SC 2255 it has been ruled that the terminus a quo for the period of limitation provided in section 20 is the date when a proceeding for contempt is initiated by the Court, Thus, from the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that at best the alleged contempt, if any, was committed on 13-8-1984 and the contempt application has come up before the Court for Initiating the proceedings against the opposite parties under the contempt of Courts Act, 1971 on 23-8-1985. Thus, not proceeding can be initiated in the present case in view of the bar created by section 20.