Judgment

MUDHOLKAR, J. : In this appeal by special leave, the appellant who has been found guilty of contempt of court by the High Court of Orissa in challenging his conviction. To this appeal, as well as to Criminal Appeal 2 to 1960 in which another person is challenging his conviction for contempt of court by the same High Court, the Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court have been made parties. The learned Additional Solicitor-General who has put in an appearance for a limited purpose has raised a point that in such matters it is not at all necessary to make the Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court parties. He points out that in England in all contempt matters the usual title of the proceeding is "in re.......(so and so)," that is, the person who is proceeded against for contempt. The same practice, according to him, is followed in appeals. We must, however, point out that in appeals preferred to the Privy Council from convictions for contempt by the High Court in India as well as in appeals before this Court, the Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court concerned have been made respondents. In Ambard v. Attorney-General for Trinidad Tobago, 1936 AC 322 we