Criminal contempt jurisdiction survives overlap with IPC offences, and suo motu proceedings remain valid if fair opportunity is given.

The High Court's contempt jurisdiction over a subordinate court was held not to be barred merely because the same conduct could also amount to an Indian Penal Code offence; the proviso to Section 10 applies only where the act is specifically punishable as contempt under the IPC. The Court further held that Section 15 does not exclude suo motu action in criminal contempt of subordinate courts, and that a summary contempt procedure is valid where the contemners receive notice, an opportunity to respond, and a fair chance to place defence material on record. The convictions for criminal contempt were sustained and the custodial sentences affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court's jurisdiction to proceed for contempt of a subordinate court was barred because the conduct also constituted an offence under the Indian Penal Code; (ii) whether the High Court could initiate contempt proceedings against a subordinate court on its own motion; and (iii) whether the summary procedure adopted, including reliance on affidavits without cross-examination, denied the appellants a fair opportunity and vitiated the conviction.

Issue (i): whether the High Court's jurisdiction to proceed for contempt of a subordinate court was barred because the conduct also constituted an offence under the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was construed as excluding the High Court's jurisdiction only where the acts complained of are specifically punishable as contempt under the Indian Penal Code. A mere overlap with an IPC offence such as intentional insult or interruption in a judicial proceeding does not oust contempt jurisdiction, because criminal contempt under Section 2(c) is wider and protects the authority of the court and the administration of justice.

Conclusion: The bar under the proviso to Section 10 did not apply, and the contention was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether the High Court could initiate contempt proceedings against a subordinate court on its own motion.

Analysis: Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was harmoniously read with Section 10. The omission of an express "own motion" reference in Section 15(2) was held not to remove the High Court's power to act suo motu in cases of criminal contempt of subordinate courts. The report of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, the presence of the Advocate General, and the materials before the High Court supported valid initiation.

Conclusion: The High Court could lawfully initiate proceedings on its own motion, and the objection to initiation failed.

Issue (iii): whether the summary procedure adopted, including reliance on affidavits without cross-examination, denied the appellants a fair opportunity and vitiated the conviction.

Analysis: Criminal contempt proceedings are summary in nature, and the ordinary procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Evidence Act does not strictly apply. The contemners were served with the allegations, given opportunities to file replies and supplementary affidavits, and allowed to place defence material on record. They did not seek cross-examination at the appropriate stage, and the High Court considered the material from multiple sources before convicting only those against whom corroboration existed.

Conclusion: The procedure was fair and adequate, and the conviction was not vitiated.

Final Conclusion: The convictions for criminal contempt were sustained, the appeals failed, and the custodial sentences imposed by the High Court were affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court retains jurisdiction to punish criminal contempt of a subordinate court even when the conduct may also amount to an IPC offence, and it may act on its own motion under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 if the contemners are given a fair and reasonable opportunity in summary proceedings.

---