K. J. SENGUPTA, J.

( 1 ) THE short point has arisen in this case as to whether a joint affidavit in view of Rule 30 of the Contempt of Court Rules of this Court 1975 should be sufficient for defending a contempt proceeding initiated against more then one person. Mr. Gupta appearing for the alleged contemners submits that it is permissible in view of the decision rendered by the learned single Judge of this Court reported in 1981 CLJ 528. Mr. Gupta is very fair enough to bring another decision of the learned single Judge holding contrary view. The aforesaid judgment was rendered by Justice K. M. Yusuf reported in 1991 Cri LJ 246. Mr. Gupta submits that the contrary view taken by Justice Yusuf relying on Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in AIR 1952 Calcutta 919. He argues that the Division Bench judgment of this Court has not dealt with this point, particularly it has been held amongst others by the Division Bench that though contempt proceeding is in the nature of proceedings in personal, the representation in representative character is not permissible in the contempt proceeding. Justice Jana has specifically dealt with and interpreted the Rule 30 and while doing so

Click Here to Read the rest of this document