TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the motion for contempt was maintainable notwithstanding the initial defect in the applicant's description and the later amendment; (ii) whether the High Court had jurisdiction to punish contempt alleged to have been committed against a subordinate Criminal Court at Barisal; (iii) whether the impugned newspaper articles constituted contempt of the High Court itself so as to justify summary punishment.
Issue (i): Whether the motion for contempt was maintainable notwithstanding the initial defect in the applicant's description and the later amendment.
Analysis: The proceeding was originally framed in an irregular form, but the Court permitted amendment so that the application conformed to the authority actually granted. The defect was treated as curable and the matter was allowed to proceed on the amended footing.
Conclusion: The application was regularised by amendment and proceeded on the merits.
Issue (ii): Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to punish contempt alleged to have been committed against a subordinate Criminal Court at Barisal.
Analysis: Jurisdiction was examined from inheritance under the abolished courts and from the High Court's own constitutional powers. The Supreme Court of Calcutta had no authority over mofussil criminal courts; the Sudder Dewani Adawlut was civil only; and the Sudder Nizamut Adawlut, though supervisory, was not shown to be a Court of Record and had no established power to punish contempt of subordinate criminal courts. The High Court's status as a Court of Record and its powers of superintendence or appellate control did not, by themselves, create a jurisdiction to commit for contempt of another court. The extension of the King's Bench doctrine was rejected as unsupported by the historical and statutory scheme applicable to this Court.
Conclusion: The High Court had no jurisdiction to punish the alleged contempt of the Magistrate's Court at Barisal.
Issue (iii): Whether the impugned newspaper articles constituted contempt of the High Court itself so as to justify summary punishment.
Analysis: The articles were considered in their natural meaning and as a whole. They criticised police methods, arrests, searches, and the handling of the investigation, and made comments on the pending prosecution, but they did not show a real or probable tendency to impede the administration of justice in this Court. No sufficient likelihood of witnesses being deterred or the Court's appellate process being prejudiced was established. The case fell short of the stringent threshold required for criminal contempt.
Conclusion: The articles did not amount to contempt of the High Court.
Final Conclusion: The motion for committal failed in law and on facts, and the respondent was not liable to be punished for contempt; costs followed the dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi: A High Court cannot summarily punish publication as contempt of a subordinate criminal court unless such power is clearly conferred by inheritance or statute, and criminal contempt will not be made out unless the publication is shown to create a real and probable interference with the administration of justice.
TaxTMI 
