V.G. Oak, C.J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by Ravi Dutt Singh, who has been sentenced to imprisonment and fine by a learned single Judge of this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act. We have considered the question whether this appeal is maintainable. We heard Mr. B.C. Saxena for the Appellant and the learned Government Advocate.
(2.) ACCORDING to Mr. B.C. Saxena, the present appeal lies u/Ch. VIII, Rule 5, Rules of Court. Ch. VItl, Rule 5, Rules of Court states: An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction in respect of a decree or order made by a court subject to the superintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, or in the exercise of its power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction) of one Judge. In order to decide whether the present appeal is maintainable u/Ch. VIII, Rule 5, Rules of Court, it is necessary to investigate whether the order under appeal was passed by the learned single Judge in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction. According to Mr. B.C. Saxena, an order passed for contempt of court is not in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction of the High Court. This position is disputed by the learned Government Advocate.
(3.) ARTICLE 215 of the Constitution of India states: Every High Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. It may, therefore, be said that in taking action for contempt of court the High Court exercises its constitutional power conferred upon it by Article 215.;