KAMAL KUMARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal has been preferred under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court against the order of the Hon'ble single Judge of this Court dated 4.9.2006 calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why the matter may not be referred for initiation of proceeding for Criminal Contempt of Court for deliberate concealment of material facts/ statement of half facts and for misleading the Court.

(2.) SRI Ravi Kant, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, however, contended that if an order is not a final order but even if notice is issued an appeal under Section 19 of the Act would lie and placed reliance on the following:

(3.) SIMILAR view has been expressed in D.N. Taneja v. Bhajan Lal (supra) and Union of India and Ors. etc. v. Mario Cabral E Sa (supra). After considering the various decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court a Division Bench of this Court in Vijay Krishan Goswami v. Suresh Chand Jain 1994 AWC 82, has held that an appeal lies from a decision as well as from an order under Section 19 of the Act. Decision means 'final decision of the contempt application'. However, since the word 'order' has been used in the same provision, it would refer to some thing other than final judgment and, therefore, an appeal may be maintainable against an order, which does not finally dispose of the contempt proceeding, but such order must be one, which is passed in exercise of jurisdiction, to punish for contempt.