Pratap Kumar Ray, J. - (1.) Heard the learned advocate appearing for the applicant of this contempt application.
(2.) On perusal of the application it appears that in the cause title and in the prayer portion there is no identification detailing the contemptuous act and conduct of the respective alleged contemners who are three in numbers herein. Contempt proceeding is a quasi criminal proceeding in view of the reason that order directing imprisonment to jail and/or Le could be imposed to the alleged contemners on finding him guilty of the charges. Reliance is placed to the judgment passed in the case Mrityunjoy Das and another v. Sayed Hasibur Rahaman and others, (2001) 3 SCC 739 , I wherein on issue of burden of proof in contempt proceeding and degree of proof, the Court relied upon the observation of Lord Denning in paragraph 14. which reads such : "The common English phrase "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 regard "standard of proof", as it is 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 reasonable doubt."
(3.) In the case Re Bramblevale Limited, (1969) 3 All ER 1062 (CA) the Court held to this effect : "A Contempt of Court is an offence of a criminal character. A man may be sent to prison for it must be proved "beyond reasonable doubt".;