https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184147 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. en-us Wed, 24 Sep 1958 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:33:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184147 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 24 Sep 1958 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184147