LexSUKHDEV SINGH SODHI versus THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGES OF THE PEPSU HIGH COURT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1953 Cornmi_ssioner of. Income-tax Excess Profits Tax, Bombay· City v. 1rf.essrs. Bhogilal Laherchand 1953 Nov. 26. I 454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1954] this question referred to the High Court in the affirmative. Appeal allowed. Agent for the appellant: G. H. Rajadhyaksha. Agent for the respondent: Rajinder Narain. SUKHDEV SINGH SODHI v. THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUDGES OF THE PEPSU HIGH COURT. [MUKHERJEA, VIVIAN BOSE and BHAGWATI JJ.] Contempt of court-Contempt of Judges of High Court-Power of S1'preme Court to transfer proceedings to another High Court- Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, ss. 1(2), 527-Constitution of India, • art. 215-Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, s. 3. The Supreme Court bas no power under section 527 of the Criminal Procedure Code or under any other provision of law to transfer from a High Court, proceedings which that High Court has initiated for contempt of itself, to another High Court. Section 527 of the Criminal Procedrire Code does not apply to such a oase as the power of a High Court to institute proceedings for contempt of itself and to punish the contemner where neces- sary, is a special jurisdiction which is inherent in a.11 courts of record and section 1 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code excludes such special jurisdictions from its scope. It is desirable, on general principles of justice, that a Judge who has been personally attacked should not as far as possible hear a. contempt matter which, to that extent, concerns him personally. In re Abdool and JJiahtab (8 W.R. Or. 32), Surendra.nath Banerjea v. Chief Justice and Judges of the High Coi<rt of Bengal (10 I.A. 171), In re Abdul Hasan .Jauhar (I.L.R. 48 All. 711), In the matter of Sashi Bhi<shan Sarbadhicary (I.L.R. 29 All. 95), Crown v. Sayyad Habib (I.L.R. 6 Lah. 528 F.B. I, In re Adbul Hasan Jai<har (I.L.R. 48 All. 711), In the matter of Mi<slim Ont- look, Lahore (A.LR. 1927 Lah. 610), In re JJfurli Manohar Pra.<ad (I.L.R. 8 Pat. 323), Harkishen Lal v. The Crown (I.L.R.18 Lah. 69), Ambard v. Attorney-General .for Trinidad ct Tobago ([1936J A.O. 322), William Rainy v. The Justices of Sierre Leone (8 Moo. P.O. 47), InthematterofK.L.Gauba (IL.R. 23 Lah.411),Parash·tt' ram Detaram v. Emperor (A.I.R. 1945 P'. 0. 134), ·Emperor y. . S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 455 B. G. Horniman (A.!.R. 1945 All. I), In re Pollard (L. R. 2 P. C. 106), In re Vallabhdas (I.L.R. 27 Born. 394) and Ebrahim Mamoojee Parekh v. King Emperor (I.L.R; 4 Rang. 257) referred to. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Petition (No. 1953) under section 527 of the Criminal Code. · H. /. Umrigar for the appellant. 304 of Procedure M. C. Setal11ad, Attarney~General for India ( G. N. /oshi, with him) for the respondent. 1953. November 25. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BosE J.-This is an unusual· application. asking for a transfer of certain contempt proceedings from the Pepsu High Court to any other High Court and, in the alternative, asking that ·at least the . matter should not be heard by two of the Judges of that· High Court who are named. This at once raises a question about our jurisdiction to order such a transfer. The learned counsel for the applicant relied on sec- tion 527 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Briefly his reasoning. was this. Section 527 authorises the trans- · fer of any "case" from one High Court to another whenever it is made to appear to the Supreme Court that such transfer is expedient for the ends of justice. The word "case" is not defined - but "offence" is defined in seiztion 4 (o) to mean "any act . or omission made punishable by any law for the time being · in force." Contempt is punishable . under the Contempt . of Courts Act, 1952, therefore it 'is an offence punish- able by a law which is in force ; consequently, it is an offence. Being an offence it is triable under. the Criminal Procedure Code because section 5 makes the Code applicable not. ~nly to the trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code but also to the trial of offences against "other laws." As it is a matter triable. under the Criminal Procedure Code it must be a "case" within the meaning of section 527 and accordingly the section can be invoked here.- \Ve are unable to agree. In our opinion, . the power of a High Court to institute proceedings for contempt 1953 SukhJIU Singh Sodhi v. • The Chief justicl and Judges of thl Pepsu High Court. ·"· 195
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.