- (1.) G. Malviya and B. P. Singh, JJ. This contempt case arises out of a refe rence made by the learned Sessions Judge, Mainpuri for taking action against Vishwanath Singh Yadav, a practising Advocate at Mainpuri, After the matter was placed before the Court, a Bench of this Court framed the follow ing charge against the opposit party : "you, Vishwanath Singh Yadav, Advocate practising at Mainpuri, on 20-10-87 after the rejection of the second bail application of accused Satya Ram and Babu Ram in case Crime No. 103/87 under Sections 302/201/404, IPC, P. S. Kishuna, District Main puri. You, with the help of your associate lawyers encircled the Court-room and did not allow the Presiding Officer, Sri Putti Lal, Judicial Magistrate, Mainpuri, to go out of the Court-room from 4. 00 to 4. 45 p. m. and when on 31-10-87 the Presiding Officer, Sri Putti Lal, rejected the third bail application of the aforesaid applicants, you abused the Presiding Officer casting aspersions on the chastity of his sister and mother and entered upon the dias having a paperweight in your hand for causing hurt to the Presiding Officer, Sri Putti Lal. You also threatened the Presiding Officer to cause his death and went away. You also threatened the Presiding Officer and used an unbecoming language in the open Court. Your aforesaid act lowered down the authority of the Court and scandalised the Presiding Officer and obstructed the administration of justice. As such, you committed au offence under Section 2 (c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 which is punishable under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971".
(2.) IN reply to the said charge, a counter-affidavit was filed by the op posite-party alongwith an application. It was prayed in the application that the instant contempt proceedings against the opposite- party being not main tainable under Proviso to Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the proceedings against him may be dropped. Some other counter-affidavits and applications were also filed. We have heard Sri P. S. Adhikari, learned Additional Government Advocates as also Sri R. R. Yadav for the opposite-party. The contention of the learned counsel for the opposite-party Sri R. R. Yadav is that this Court had no jurisdiction to proceed against this contempt in view of Proviso to Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Section 10 of the above Act reads as under: "section 10. Power of High Court to punish contempts of Subordinate Courts.- Every High Court shall have and exercise the same juris diction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same pro cedure and practice, in respect of Contempt of Courts subordinate to it as it has and exercise in respect of contempts of itself : Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a Court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. " In view of Proviso to Section 10, it is clear that the High Court can not take cognizance of contempt, if the said act may also constitute an offence uuder the Indian Penal Code. Sri R. R. Yadav asserts that the charge which has been framed against the petitioner clearly brings out an offence under Section 228, I. P. C. against him. Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code reads as follows : "228. Intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting in judicial proceedings.- Whoever intentionally offers any insult, or cause any interruptions to any public servant, while such public servants is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with simple imprisonment, for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. "
(3.) A perusal of the charge definitely indicates that the contempt alleged could have clearly amounted to an offence. under Section 228, I. P. C. There fore, the objection of the learned counsellor the opposite- party has force. He also relies upon the judgment in Contempt Case No. 128 of 1973 - State v. K. C. Mishra, decided on 15-4-1982 where in this Court after going through the allegations had come to the conclusion that the allegations amounting an offence under Section 228, I. P. C. render this Court incompetent to proceed against the contemner in view of the provision of Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act. However, Sri. P. S. Adhikari learned Addi. Government Advocate contended that admittedly the criminal proceedings against the opposite-party is pending as is mentioned in paragraph 27 of the affidavit of the opposite-party filed in support of his application dated February 14, 1989, by which he wanted this contempt case to be adjourned till disposal of those proceedings. Shri P. S. Adhikari contended that criminal proceedings against the petitioner being not under Section 228, I. P. C. but being only under Sections 353, 342 and 504, I. P. C. this Court is not prevented to investigate into the contempt. Proviso to Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act does not say that if any criminal proceedings are pending in respsct of the same charge, then only the jurisdic tion of the High Court would be barred. The section clearly contemplates that if the incident constituted an offence under Indian Penal Code that would bar the jurisdiction of the High Court. Hence the mere fact that in the criminal proceedings pending against opposite-party, there is no charge of Section 228 that would not enable the High Court to take cognizance of the contempt of the Subordinate Courts. Moreover, it is always possible for the Court seized of the matter in respect of the same incident to add or frame charge at any stage of the trial. Hence, the contention of Shri P. S. Adhikari in this respect is not sustainable.;