KISHAN LAL Vs. CHHOTEY LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been moved with the prayer that the proceedings for civil contempt be initiated against the respondents and they be punished for the same. Criminal Contempt Petition No. 531 of 1985 was moved by Kishan Lal on 20th of November, 1985. A Division Bench of the Court dismissed the petition for civil contempt on 11 -2 -1986 with the observations that sufficient material was not available to take cognizance for criminal contempt but it will be open to the petitioner to move petition for civil contempt, if any, case of civil contempt be made out. After the dismissal of the criminal contempt the petitioner filed the petition for civil contempt on 5th of March, 1986 and it was directed to be listed for admission alongwith the record of criminal contempt No. 531 of 1955, decided on 11 -2 -86. It came up for admission on 25th of July, 1986 and on that day the learned counsel for the petition prayed for and was granted a week's time to study the legal position and during which proceedings for civil contempt could be initiated as provided under section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act has expired on 10th of July, 1986.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is urged on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he moved the petition for criminal contempt on 20th of November, 1985 and after the dismissal of the criminal contempt petition, he has filed the petition for civil contempt on 5th of March, 1986. The proceedings for civil contempt could be initiated on 5th March, 1986 and such proceedings could be initiated even upto 10th of July, 1986 but they have not been initiated so far. The petitioner has been pursuing the matter with due diligence and he is not at fault, so the proceedings for civil contempt can be initiated even after the expiry of the period provided under Section 20 of the Act.

(3.) SECTION 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act does not refer to the institution of any proceeding for contempt. What Section 20 contemplates is initiation of proceedings for contempt. Such initiation may be on its own motion by the court or may be otherwise, that is to say on the information supplied by someone, in case of Civil contempt; in the case of criminal contempt on the motion of the Advocate General or on the motion of someone else with the consent of the Advocate General in writing, court can initiate proceedings. Initiation of proceedings, for civil contempt as well as for criminal contempt can be done by a court on its own motion in addition to what has been stated above, It is, therefore, clear that section 20 is such that it does not contemplate institution of a petition or an application by a private individual for taking action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It merely contemplates initiation of proceedings by a court on its own motion or otherwise. The fetter which section 20 places on the jurisdiction of the court is that the court shall not initiate any proceedings for contempt either on its own motion or otherwise after the expiration of a period of one year from the date on which contempt is alleged to have been committed Since there is no application or petition before the court in such proceedings, the question of condoning delay does not arise. The provisions of Limitation Act do not apply. Delay can be condoned in a case where a person who has a right to institute action has approached the court after the expiry of the period of limitation. Section 20 does not contemplate such situation. The only possible conclusion which can be drawn is that no contempt proceedings can be initiated by the court after expiry of the period of one year from the date of alleged commission of contempt. If an application for taking action under the Contempt of Courts Act is filed within the period of one year from the date of alleged commission of the contempt but the court has not initiated proceedings before the expiry of one year from such date, such application automatically fails and the jurisdiction of the Court is barred. In the instant case, though as stated above, the application for initiating proceedings for civil contempt has been filed well within time yet as proceedings for civil contempt have not been initiated within a period of one year from the date of the commission of the contempt, it is not possible to initiate proceedings thereafter. The prayer for the same is consequently rejected.