- (1.) LEARNED Counsel for the opposite party has raised a preliminary point challenging the jurisdiction of this Court. Learned Counsel pointed out that one part of the utterance i. e. kis idiot ne Advocate banwa diya hai alleged to have been made by the contemner opposite party, is said to constitute contempt of this Court, while the other part of the utterance alleged to have been made and the conduct displayed by the opposite party is said to constitute contempt of his own Court. Placing reliance on Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, learned Counsel for the opposite party urged that this Court cannot take cognizance of either of the two natures of contempts on the application moved by Sri V. C. Misra. Learned Counsel for the opposite party referred to the case Gurcharan Dass v. State of Rajasthan and insisted that the question regarding jurisdiction should be decided before entering into the facts of the case. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also agreed that the point of jurisdiction raised on behalf of the opposite party may be decided first.
(2.) IN support of his first Dart of the argument namely that this Court cannot take cognizance of its own contempt said to have been committed by the opposite party, on the application made by the petitioner, reliance has been placed on Section 15 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, hereafter to be called 1971 Act. which reads thus: COGNIZANCE OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT IN OTHER CASES- (1) In the case of a criminal contempt other than a contempt referred to in Section 15, the Supreme Court or the High Court, may take action on its own motion or on a motion made by- (a) the Advocate General or (b) any other person, with the consent in writing of the Advocate General. " It is not controverted on either side that the part of the utterance alleged to have been made by the opposite party and quoted earlier in this order, if at all constitutes a 'criminal contempt' within the meaning of that expression used in Subsection (1) of Section 15. It is also not controverted on either side that this Court can suo motu take action to punish contempt of itself. The argument that has been raised by learned Counsel for the opposite party however is that the Court cannot make use of the application moved by Sri V. C. Misra (petitioner) for even suo motu taking cognizance of the contempt. The argument fails to impress us. In order to take cognizance of its own contempt committed outside, the Court has to receive information from one source or another. The information in the instant case has been conveyed by Sri V. C. Misra, a lawyer who happened to be present before the O. P. , when the contempt is said to have been committed. All that Sri Misra has done by moving the present petition is to have brought to the notice of this Court the alleged contempt and leave it to the Court to take such action as it may like. The prayer contained in the application reads as follows: It is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to take suo motu action under Section 15 (1) of the aforesaid Act against the contemner-op-posite party, or be pleased to pass such other and further order as the Court deems fit.
(3.) A reading of the application along with the prayer contained therein leaves no room for doubt that the petitioner has only conveyed information to the Court of the contempt alleged to have been committed by the opposite party. Once the information has reached this Court, it is open to it to take cognizance of it. This part of the argument raised by learned Counsel for the respondent is, therefore wholly devoid of substance and is turned down.;