JUDGMENT (CAV)

Deepak Gupta, C.J.—On account of cleavage of opinion between two Division Benches of this Court regarding maintainability of an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter called ‘the Act, 1971’), the following question has been referred for adjudication by this Full Bench:—

“Whether an appeal under Section 19 of the Act is maintainable against an order passed by the Single Judge framing charges against the contemnor under contempt jurisdiction?”

2. A Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 22.01.2015 in M.A. No.04 of 2015 held that an appeal lies against an order framing a charge in contempt proceedings under Section 19 of the Act, 1971. However, in another judgment delivered by another Division Bench of this Court on 06.04.2016 in M.A. No. 15 of 2016 and other analogous cases, it has been held that an appeal under Section 19 of the Act, 1971 would lie only from an order or decision imposing a punishment for contempt and unless there is an order or decision imposing punishment, an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act, 1971 would not be maintainable.

3. At the outset, we may mention that the judgment passed on 06.04.2016 does not take note of the earlier judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, passed on 22.01.2015. It appears that the attention of the latter Division Bench was not drawn to the earlier judgment. Therefore, the second judgment would be ‘per incuriuam’. However since the matter is of importance, we propose to decide the same.

4. To appreciate the scope and ambit of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, it would be apposite to refer the same:—

“19. Appeals—(1) An appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt—”

(a) where the order or decision is that of a single Judge, to a Bench of not less than two Judges of the Court;

(b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench, to the Supreme Court:—

Provided that where the order or decision is that of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any Union territory, such appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court.

(2) Pending any appeal, the appellate Court may order that—

(a) the execution of the punishment or order appealed against be suspended;

(b) if the appellant is in confinement, he be released on bail; and

(c) the appeal be heard notwithstanding that the appellant has not purged his contempt.

(3) Where any person aggrieved by any order against which an appeal may be filed satisfies the High Court that he intends to prefer an appeal, the High Court may also exercise all or any of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (2).

(4) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed—

(a) in the case of an appeal to a Bench of the High Court, within thirty days;

(b) in the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court, within sixty days, from the date of the order appealed against.”

5. Section 19 give a right to a party to appeal against “any order or decision of High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt.” Section 19(1) of the Act, 1971 clearly shows that the legislature in its wisdom conferred the right of appeal not only against a decision but also against an order. When two words are used in a statute, they both have to be given separate meaning. They may be read ejusdem generis but normally they cannot be treated to have the same meaning.

6. Section 19 of the Act, 1971 has been the subject matter of discussion in a large number of cases. Even before us, learned counsel for the parties have cited a number of judgments. We may therefore refer to the same.

7. The leading authority on the point is Baradakant Mishra v. Mr. Justice Gautikrushna Misra, CJ of the Orrissa High Court, AIR 1974 SC 2255. In the said case, the High Court refused to take action on the motion made by the Appellant for initiating contempt proceedings. Aggrieved by the said order of the High Court refusing to initiate proceedings,