Notice before admission issued by the court does not constitute initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for the purpose of limitation.

SYED SAADATHULLA HUSSAINI, J.

( 1 ) THIS contempt case has been filed by the petitioner alleging that the respondents have violated the orders of this Court passed in W. A. No. 32 of 1991 dated 2-11-1992 and to punish them and to direct the respondent No. 1 to dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner on merits.

( 2 ) AT the outset, two preliminary objections have been raised by the respondents viz. , (i) that the contempt case is barred by limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. (ii) that no proceedings have been initiated within a period of one year from the date of contempt alleged, as such, the contempt case is not maintainable.

( 3 ) WE have heard at length the arguments of both the counsel and we must say fairly that the learned Government Pleader has not pressed the first objection after conclusion of the arguments by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

( 4 ) WITH regard to the second objection, it is submitted, that the date of alleged contempt is 10-3-1994 and the contempt case has been filed on 10-3-1995. When the said case came up for admission on 10-3-1995, the court directed that notice before admission be issued to the respondents. After service of notice, the case has now come up for hearing.

( 5 ) IT has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short "the Act") commences only when the proceedings are initiated by the Court under Section 17 of the Act. Section 17 of the Act reads as under so far as it is relevant : "section 17 : Procedure after cognizance (1) Notice of every proceeding under Section 15 shall be served personally on the person charged, unless the Court for reasons to be recorded directs otherwise. (2) The notice shall be accompanied, (a) in the case of proceedings commenced on a motion, by a copy of the motion as also copies of the affidavits, if any, on which such motion is founded; and (b) in the case of proceedings commenced on a reference by a subordinate court, by a copy of the reference. He has also invited our attention to Section 20 of the Act, which is to the following effect :"section 20 : Limitation for action for contempt. No Court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. "

( 6 ) THIS case has not been admitted as yet. The limitation period for action for contempt is one year. The contempt alleged is dated 10-3-1994. Obviously, this is barred by limitation. The other question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is only proceedings have to be initiated within a period of one year. As this court, at the time of admission on 10-3-1994, (1995) had issued "notice before admission" to the respondents, he submits that the proceedings have been initiated on the issue of notice to the respondents, as such, the case is not barred by limitation. A plain reading of Section 20 of the Act leaves us in no doubt that an action has to be initiated for violating any order of the court, it is to be initiated within a period of one year from the date of alleged violation. The question of ordering of notice before admission to the respondents could be taken as initiation within the meaning of Section 17 of the Act.

( 7 ) FURTHER, the learned counsel has very strenuously argued that if, the court passes any order within a period of one year from the date of the alleged contempt, it would be considered as initiation of the proceedings and would not be barred by limitation. He has further submitted that this court when ordered notice before admission to the respondents, has applied its mind and issued notice before admission, as the court was satisfied that prima facie the orders of this court have been violated by the respondents. The important aspect to be dealt with is what is the effect of issuing notice before admiss

Click Here to Read the rest of this document