KERSY RATONSHA DRIVER Vs. COLLECTOR OF CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge refusing to initiate action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondents.

(2.) THE respondents have raised a preliminary objection to the maintenability of the appeal. They contend that in view of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 an appeal is maintainable only against an order punishing for contempt and not otherwise. An order declining to initiate proceedings for contempt or an order of acquittal of the contemnor is not amenable to appeal.

(3.) IN our humble opinion, the decision in the case of Municipal Corporation of Jabalpur (supra) is neither inconsistent nor contrary to the decision in Midnapur case (supra). It considers a situation where some orders or decisions made in the course of contempt proceeding which may result in a conviction of and a sentence for contempt. An illustration for the same would be order or directions issued to the alleged contemnor relating to the alleged act of contempt without convicting him for contempt. Such order or direction if not complied with may result in a conviction of and a sentence for contempt and therefore appeal against the same may be preferred u/s 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Therefore the decision of the Apex Court in Midnapur case still holds the field and we are bound by the same.