The limitation period under Sec. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act starts from the date of the alleged contempt, and the Court cannot initiate contempt proceedings after the expiry of one year from that date.

( 1 ) THE complainant in this case is an Advocate practising at Bangalore who has filed this petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act praying that the two accused be punished under Sec. 12 of the Act read with Art. 215 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) THE facts stated by the complainant are as follows : Cr. R. P. No. 665 of 1973 was filed by one Nagawwa against V. S. Koujalgi and a. K. Kottarashetti and the same was pending on the file of this Court. It was disposed of by Mr. Justice D. Noronha on 16-12-1974. On 11-4-1977 the Chief Justice of this Court made a speech referring to the said demise of the retired Judge Mr. Noronha. Appreciating the qualities and judicial independence of Justice Noronha, the Chief Justice observed as follows :"i will be failing in my duty if I do not place on record an incident which may never be known to the public. There was a criminal case pending in this Court in which some of the Ministers of the State Government were personally involved. On the basis of intelligence reports received, I directed the Registrar to post the case before one of my colleagues. As foreseen by me, that learned judge was approached by one or more Ministers and therefore the learned Judge saying that he would not like to hear the case, directed the office to post it before some other Judge. When this matter came to my notice, I sent for Mr. Justice Noronha whose health was not at all good then. I asked him whether he will hear and dispose of the case even if pressures were brought by Ministers. Mr. Noronha, agreed to hear the case. He heard and decided the matter and the decision went against the interested Ministers. Justice Noronha later told me that as I had rightly warned him, he was approached by one cf the Hon'ble Ministers but he told the Minister that he has taken the oath of office. I brought this fact to the notice of the then chief Justice Mr. A. N. Ray. " (1977 (1)Karlj. , (Journal) Page 97 ). But, in the speech the names of two Ministers who appro-ached the judges of this Court were not disclosed. In the Rajya Sabha Sri. Mulka govinda Reddy, M. P. , asked the following question to the Union Law minister :" (a) whether the Chief Justice of Karnataka is reported to have made a statement to the effect that some Ministers of Karnataka allegedly interfered in the dispensation of justice by the High court and (b) if so, what are the details in this regard ?" (Exhibit-B ). The Minister of Law, Justice and Company Affairs gave reply in the rajya Sabha on the 25th July, 1977 as is clear from the proceedings of the Rajya Sabha, a copy of which has been produced in the case as exhibit-C The answers given by the Minister read as follows :" (a) Yes, Sir. (b) A statement is laid on the Table of the House. "the Statement laid on the Table of the House reads as follows :" In April 1977, the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court at a reference, while paying a tribute to Shri D. Noronha, a retired judge of the Karnataka High Court who had died, stated that in a criminal case pending in the High Court, one or more Ministers had approached the Judges before whom the case had been posted for hearing. The Chief Justice thereupon asked Justice Noronha if he would hear the case even if pressures were brought by Ministers. Justice Noronha agreed and after deciding the case told the Chief justice that he had been approached by a Minister. (2 ). According to the information now furnished by the Chief justice of the Karnataka High Court, 8 persons had been committed to the Court of Sessions, Belgaum as a result of an incident on 19-3-1973, in which one Nagappa was waylaid and assaulted by a group of persons. Nagappa died after the police Patil had recorded his dying declaration. During the pendency of the Sessions Case (No. 30 of 1974), Nagawwa, mother of the deceased Nagappa, filed a private complaint under Sec. 200 Crlpc, arraying two more persons as accused. One of the two