Anil Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for applicant and gone through the record.
(2.) PRESENT contempt petition has been filed for alleged violation of order dated 04.07.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 3181(MS) of 2008(Iqbal v. State of U.P. and Ors.). From the perusal of record, it transpires that present contempt petition is barred by statutory period of limitation as provided under Section 20 of Contempt Court Act, 1971.
(3.) IN view of the above said fact, the first question which is to be considered in the present case is whether the present contempt petition is barred by period of limitation as provided under Section 20 of the Contempt Court Act, 1971 or not. In order to decide the said controversy it is necessary to have a glance to the provisions of Section 20 of the Act which is as under: Sections 20 reads as follows: Limitation for actions for contempt. -No court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. Section 20 of the Act is mandatory in the sense that if the proceedings are sought to be initiated after expiry of one year form the date the alleged contempt has been committed, it would be beyond the jurisdiction of the Court to initiate such proceedings. Further, Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act provides that no court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act came for consideration before the Apex Court in Om Prakash Jaiswal v. D.K. Mittal, : (2000) 3 SCC 171. In the aforesaid case, the order of the Court was passed on 19.12.1986 on an undertaking. The contempt was alleged to have been committed on 11.1.1987. The application for initiating proceedings under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act was filed soon thereafter, and on 15.1.1987, the High Court issued a show cause notice to the opposite party as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated. On 6.1.1988 a notice was directed to be issued why the opposite party be not punished for disobeying the order dated 19.12.1986. The High Court subsequently came to the conclusion that issuing of a show cause notice did not amount the initiation of proceedings and, therefore, the bar enacted by Section 20 of the Act was attracted and the application was liable to be rejected. The Apex Court in the said judgment laid down that filing of an application or petition for initiating proceedings for contempt or a mere receipt of such reference by the Court does not amount to initiation of the proceedings by Court. It held that it is only when the Court has formed an opinion that a prima facie case for initiating proceedings for contempt is made out and that the Respondents or the alleged contemnors should be called upon to show cause why they should not be punished, only then the Court can be said to have initiated proceedings for contempt.;