PAREED PILLAY, C.J.

The question that arises for consideration in whether the decision in Rajan Nair v. Mohan, (1993) 1 Ker LT 782 requires reconsideration. In the above decision a Division Bench of this Court held that the action initiated by directing issue of notice to the contemnor should be within a period of one year from the date of the alleged contempt. The Division Bench held that if the court has not initiated proceedings by passing some order within a period of one year from the date of the alleged act of contempt the bar contained in S. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 comes into operation. The court held that on a reading of S. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, it is clear that it places absolute fetter on the power of the High Court to initiate proceedings for contempt after the expiration of the period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.

2. In the above decision N. Venkataramanappa v. D. K. Kaikar, AIR 1978 Karnataka 57 was relied. In that decision Karnataka High Court held that S. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act operates as an absolute bar to initiation of contempt proceeding whether suo motu or at th