Contempt jurisdiction survives where allegations scandalise the court and undermine public confidence, even if they also amount to IPC insult.

Section 3(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 bars High Court cognizance only where the complained-of conduct is itself punishable under a specific IPC provision; it does not exclude contempt jurisdiction merely because the same facts may also amount to an insult under Section 228 IPC. Allegations imputing conspiracy and bribery to a Magistrate were held to go beyond personal affront and to scandalise the court, because they tended to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. The High Court therefore had jurisdiction to proceed in contempt, and the matter had to be decided on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court's jurisdiction to proceed for contempt was barred by Section 3(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 because the complained-of act was said to be punishable under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. (ii) Whether the allegations made in the transfer application and affidavit amounted merely to an intentional insult within Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code or to scandalising the court itself.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court's jurisdiction to proceed for contempt was barred by Section 3(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 because the complained-of act was said to be punishable under Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: Section 3(2) excludes the High Court's cognizance only where the contempt alleged is itself an offence punishable under a specific provision of the Indian Penal Code. The Court distinguished between conduct that is merely an insult to a judicial officer and conduct that attacks the authority of the court and undermines public confidence in the administration of justice. The statutory bar cannot be invoked merely because the same facts may also suggest an offence under Section 228.

Conclusion: The bar under Section 3(2) did not apply on the facts found by the Court.

Issue (ii): Whether the allegations made in the transfer application and affidavit amounted merely to an intentional insult within Section 228 of the Indian Penal Code or to scandalising the court itself.

Analysis: The allegations imputed conspiracy and bribery to the Magistrate and, taken at face value, went beyond a personal affront. The Court held that such imputations were of a kind that scandalised the court itself and tended to create distrust in the public mind and impair confidence in the administration of justice. Mere criticism of judicial conduct is permissible, but malicious imputations intended to undermine the administration of justice are not confined to Section 228.

Conclusion: The complained-of conduct was not confined to Section 228 and amounted to contempt by scandalising the court.

Final Conclusion: The High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the contempt matter, its contrary view was set aside, and the matter was required to be decided on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 3(2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 bars High Court cognizance only where the conduct complained of is merely an offence punishable under a specific provision of the Indian Penal Code; conduct that scandalises the court and impairs public confidence in the administration of justice is not taken out of the contempt jurisdiction merely because it may also contain elements of insult.

---