Contempt jurisdiction outside criminal procedure: alleged contemner not an accused person, and voluntary affidavits may be cross-examined.

Contempt of court was treated as a special jurisdiction of a High Court as a court of record, not as an offence created by statute for purposes of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. On that basis, the Code's procedural rules for investigation, inquiry and trial of offences were held inapplicable to contempt proceedings. The alleged contemner was also held not to be an accused person under the Indian Oaths Act, 1873, and not a person accused of an offence for Article 20(3) of the Constitution. A contemner who voluntarily files an affidavit may therefore be cross-examined on it, subject to ordinary limits against self-incrimination.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether contempt of court is an offence within the meaning of Section 5(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and whether the procedure for investigation, inquiry and trial of offences under that Code applies to contempt proceedings; (ii) Whether an alleged contemner is an accused person within the meaning of Section 5 of the Indian Oaths Act, 1873; (iii) Whether an alleged contemner is a person accused of an offence within the meaning of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and, if he voluntarily files an affidavit, whether he can be cross-examined upon it.

Issue (i): Whether contempt of court is an offence within the meaning of Section 5(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and whether the procedure for investigation, inquiry and trial of offences under that Code applies to contempt proceedings.

Analysis: Contempt was held to be punishable by the High Court in exercise of its inherent and supervisory jurisdiction as a court of record, and not as an offence created by statute law within the meaning of the Code. The statutory scheme of the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure was treated as covering only those acts made punishable by enacted law, while contempt jurisdiction was regarded as a special jurisdiction regulated but not created by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926 and recognised by Article 215 of the Constitution of India.

Conclusion: Contempt of court is not an offence within the meaning of Section 5(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and the Code's procedure for offences does not apply.

Issue (ii): Whether an alleged contemner is an accused person within the meaning of Section 5 of the Indian Oaths Act, 1873.

Analysis: Since contempt proceedings were held not to be proceedings for an offence within the meaning of the Code, the alleged contemner was not treated as an accused person for the purpose of Section 5 of the Oaths Act. The prohibition against administering oath to an accused in a criminal proceeding was therefore held inapplicable to contempt proceedings.

Conclusion: The alleged contemner is not an accused person within the meaning of Section 5 of the Indian Oaths Act, 1873.

Issue (iii): Whether an alleged contemner is a person accused of an offence within the meaning of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and, if he voluntarily files an affidavit, whether he can be cross-examined upon it.

Analysis: Article 20(3) was construed in light of the definition of offence as one made punishable by law for the time being in force. Contempt was held not to fall within that definition, so the alleged contemner was not a person accused of an offence for Article 20(3). Once the contemner voluntarily filed an affidavit, he was treated as having waived any privilege against answering on that affidavit, subject to the ordinary limits of self-incrimination.

Conclusion: The alleged contemner is not a person accused of an offence within the meaning of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, and if he voluntarily files an affidavit, he can be cross-examined upon it.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the view that contempt proceedings stand outside the ordinary criminal-law conception of an offence, and that voluntary affidavit evidence by a contemner may be tested by cross-examination.

Ratio Decidendi: Contempt of court, when punished by a High Court as a court of record under its inherent jurisdiction, is not an offence made punishable by statute for the purposes of the Code of Criminal Procedure or Article 20(3), and a contemner who voluntarily gives affidavit evidence may be cross-examined on it.

---