NARESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. UMRAOMAL AGARWALLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule was issued on the opposite parties to show cause why they should not be proceeded against for contempt of the Ct. of the Addl. Chief Presidency Mag. of Calcutta for having printed & published certain leaflets containing remarks as regards the merits of a case pending in the Mag.'s Ct.

(2.) The leaflets have been produced before us & quite clearly they contain a remark that the complaint filed by the petnr. in the Mag's. Ct. at Calcutta is false. On behalf of the opposite parties a point has been raised that as proceedings have already been instituted by one Biswanath Agarwalla Under Section 500, 501 & 109, I. P. C. with regard to the publication of the very leaflets which form the subject-matter of the present contempt proceedings, these proceedings for contempt do not lie before this Ct. in view of the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 2, Contempt of Courts Act. The sub-section is in these words :

(3.) It was contended on behalf of the opposite parties that if by the act by which a party is said to have committed Contempt of a subordinate Ct. an offence punishable under the I. P. C. is committed, then the H. C. shall not take cognizance of the alleged contempt. In our judgment this is not the proper interpretation to put on the words used in the sub-section. As we have already stated it is necessary to note carefully that this sub-section does not say that the H. C. shall not take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed where the acts alleged to have constituted the contempt amounted to an offence punishable under the I. P. C. Instead of saying that, it says that the H. C. shall not take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a Ct. subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the I. P. C. To read into this sub-section the sense which Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the opposite party has contended for, is to read into it something which the Legislature has not said. In our judgment the only possible interpretation of the sub-section is that where the acts alleged to have constituted the contempt are punishable as contempt under the I. P. C., then only the H. C. shall not take cognizance of that contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act.