PRABH DAYAL Vs. R S SACHDEVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT :- What is the scope of Section 19 of the J. and K. contempt of Courts Act,1997 (hereinafter referred to as the State Act), is an issue which requires to be settled in these appeals. A learned Single Judge of this Court expressed an opinion that no case is made for exercising contempt jurisdiction.The appellants have preferred these appeals. The short question which is required to be gone into is : as to whether an appeal would lie when a learned Single Judge of this Court has come to the conclusion that no case ismade out for exercising the jurisdiction to punish for contempt. An ancillary question would arise as to whether a person in whose favour some directions have been given, can be left high and dry, without any remedy. Before noticing this aspect of the matter, it would be apt to notice Section 19(1) of the State Act. This provision reads as under :

(2.) A perusal of the two sections makes it apparent that the Central and the State Acts are in pari materia. If this be the position, this view expressed by the Supreme Court that an appeal would lie only if an order of punishment is recorded, would be fully attracted to these appeals also.

(3.) Precise issue was dealt with by the Supreme Court in AIR 1974 SC 225 (sic). This was again dealt with in AIR 1978 SC 1014. It was observed that an appeal could be preferred only if the High Court has exercised its jurisdiction to punish for contempt. Where no order of punishment is recorded, the appeal would not be maintainable. Similar view has been expressed in ( 1996) 6 SCC 291 : (AIR 1997 SC 113). While interpreting Section 19 of the Central Act, it was observed (at page 114; of AIR) : Therefore, an appeal would lie under Section 19 when an order in exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court punishing the contemner has been passed. In this case, the finding was that the respondents had not willfully disobeyed the order. So, there is no order punishing the respondent for violation of the orders of the High Court. Accordingly, an appeal under Section 19 would not lie." Similar view was expressed in an earlier decision reported as State of Maharashtra v. Mehboob S. Alllbhoy, (1996) 4 SCC 411 : (1996 Cri LJ 2879). In this case it was observed that it is only if the High Court passed an order in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish any person for contempt of Court then only an appeal shall be maintainable under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the Act.