Contempt requires deliberate falsity with intent to mislead; a record-based defence later disbelieved is not enough.

A contempt conviction cannot rest merely on a written statement or evidence based on records unless there is a deliberate false statement made with knowledge of falsity and an intent to mislead the court. A defence adopted from records, especially one consistently taken in connected proceedings, does not amount to contempt simply because the court later rejects it. Evidence from an officer without personal knowledge should not be treated as direct knowledge, and excluding it as hearsay was not justified on these facts. The contempt conviction was therefore unsustainable and the proceedings against the appellant could not be maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the making and verification of the written statement, and the supporting evidence based on records rather than personal knowledge, constituted contempt of court so as to justify conviction.

Analysis: A finding of contempt in such a situation requires a deliberate false statement of fact made with knowledge of falsity, so as to deceive or mislead the court. Mere adoption of a defence based on records, especially where the same stand had also been taken in a connected proceeding, does not by itself amount to contempt merely because the court later disbelieves it. The evidence tendered by an officer without personal knowledge could not be treated as direct knowledge, and shutting it out as hearsay was not justified in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The conviction for contempt was unsustainable and the proceedings could not be maintained against the appellant.

---