A.P. Sen, J. - (1.) This is an application under Sec. 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, by Shri D.C. Hajela, the then District and Sessions Judge, Alvvar, for committing certain members of the Bar Association, Alwar, for contempt of court. The applicant alleges that the respondents were guilty of contempt of court in that they were guilty of contemptuous conduct towards him and that they obstructed the proceedings of the court on July 1, 1976, when he was hearing a criminal appeal. The substance of the accusation made by him is in these terms: - You want to commercialize voices, you may sell it, your wife may sell it, your son may sell it. To say the least, this discloses a most unsatisfactory state of affairs and does hardly give any credit to Shri D.G. Hajela to the manner in which he was functioning as a District Judge, Alwar.
(2.) This Court, by its order dated August 12, 1976, issued a show cause notice to four of the respondents viz., Shri Kripa Dayal Mathur, Shri Satish Kumar Sharma , Shri V.D. Dube, and Shri Matadeen Garg. Advocates of Alwar, i.e. the respondents Nos. 3, 4, 12 and 14 to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be taken against them. These respondents have now appeared and shown cause and their case is that they have committed no contempt of court.
(3.) At the hearing, Shri M.B.L. Bhargava, learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos. 3, 4, 12 and 14 has raised certain preliminary objections namely, - (1) The alleged acts complained of, alleged to have been committed by the respondents, constitute in offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code, and therefore, proviso to Sec. 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, operates as a bar to the entertainment of proceedings under Sec. 15of the Act; (2) The application filed by Shri Hajela for drawing up proceedings for contempt, is, in substance, not a reference under Sec. 15(2) of the Act but an application under Sec. 15(1) of the the Act, That being so, the application is not maintainable as it has not been filed with the consent in writing of the Advocate General as required by Sec. 15(1)(b) of the Act; (3) The notice issued by this Court on August 12, 1976, was invalid because it does not specify the substance of the charge No action can now be initiated because of the bar of limitation contained in Sec. 20 of the Act, i.e., after the lapse of one year. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court In Re: Ram Pratap Sharma and other and In Re: Daya Nand and others : [(1977)1 Supreme Court Cases 150] in support of the contention that the notice must clearly mention the particular act complained of, constituting the contempt of court; (4) The proceedings are now barred under Sec. 20 of the Act in as much as the period of one year provided therefor, has elapsed. It is said that the court's order dated August 12, 1976 was for the issue of show cause notice and nothing more, requiring the respondents to show cause why contempt proceedings be not taken against them In fact, no competent proceedings were ever initiated The notice issued under rule 124 of the High Court Rules, dated August 19, 1976 requiring them to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of court, was not in conformity with the Court's order. Now that the period specified under Sec. 20 of the Act has elapsed, the proceedings cannot now be initiated. (5) There was no legal material on the basis of which the Court, by its order dated August 12, 1976, could have issued the notice in question.;