S. K. SHARMA, J. - (1.) ON April 24, 2001 a Presiding Officer of subordinate Judicial Court made complaint to the District Judge Jaipur City that the contemner had not only interrupted the solemn Court's proceeding in full view of the members of the Bar and litigant public but threatened, abused and assaulted him by pen-stand from the dais causing injuries to his fingers while saving his face. The said complaint was forwarded to this Court and cognizance of contempt was taken by this Court on April 30, 2001 and the contemner was ordered to be summoned through non- bailable warrants. After keeping the contemner in jail for some time, bail was granted to him.
(2.) IT also appears that the Presiding Officer on April 24, 2001 lodged written report with the Police Station Sadar Jaipur City in regard to the said incident where criminal case bearing FIR No. 185/2001 under sections 353, 332 IPC and Section 3 P. D. P. P. Act was registered against the contemner and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Jaipur City. The contemner on the other hand, send a petition for contempt by post from the Jail against the Presiding Officer, that was registered as petition No. 6/2001. We have pondered over the rival submissions. Proviso to Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (for short `1971 Act') mandates that the High Court shall not 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 as contempt under specific provisions of IPC. But it is without substance to say that the High Court's powers under Article 215 of the Constitution to punish contemner of subordinate court are controlled by the provisions contained in 1971 Act. The contempt jurisdiction of High Court springs not from any enactment as such nor from the 1971 Act but is a necessary adjunct of all Courts of Record. Proceedings under 1971 Act and under Article 215 of the Constitution are independent proceedings. When the High Court is vested with the jurisdiction to punish the contemner, it is a matter lying entirely at the absolute discretion of the High Court. It is for the High Court either to take or not to take any proceedings in this behalf. The High Court on its own motion can punish Contemner of the subordinate courts. Article 215 of the Constitution carries a constitutional sanction of such power. While taking cognizance against the contemner on April 30, 2001 this Court acted under Article 215 of the Constitution and the power given under Article 215 to High Court which is an absolute power, cannot be abridged or controlled by the provisions contained in 1971 Act. But we have also to take into consideration the rule of law that a man should not be twice vexed for one and the same cause. (NEMO DEBET BIS VEXART PRO UNA ET EDEM CAUSA ). Looking to the fact that the contemner was an accused in a criminal case initiated by the Presiding Officer in regard to the incident which is subject matter of contempt petition, we do not propose to proceed further in the matter. The proceedings of contempt petition bearing No. 5/2001 accordingly stand dropped and contempt petition No. 6/2001 stands dismissed being devoid of merit. .;