Banerjee, J. - (1.) The introduction of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 in the statute book has been for the purpose of securing a feeling of confidence of the people and for due and proper administration of justice in the country. It is powerful weapon in the hands of the law court by reason where for the exercise of jurisdiction must be with the due care and caution and for larger interest.
(2.) As regards, the burden and standard of proof, the common legal phraseology "he who asserts must prove" has its due application in the matter of proof of the allegations said to be constituting the act of contempt. As regards the 'standard of proof,' be it noted that a proceeding under the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court in terms of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act is quasi-criminal, and as such, the standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding and the breach shall have to be established beyond all reasonable doubt.
(3.) Lord Denning [in Re Bramblevale 1969 (3) All ER 1062] lends concurrence to the aforesaid and the same reads as below: "A contempt of Court is an offence of a criminal character. A man may be sent to prison for it. It must be satisfactorily proved. To use the time honoured phrase, it must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. It is not proved by showing that, when the man was asked about it, he told lies. There must be some further evidence to incriminate him. Once some evidence is given, then his lies can be thrown into the scale against him. But there must be some other evidence. .... When there are two equally consistent possibilities open to the Court, it is not right to hold that the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt." ;