The period of limitation for initiating contempt proceedings under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is to be reckoned from the date when the court initiates the proceedings for contempt either suo motu or otherwise. The power of the High Court to punish for contempt under Art. 215 of the Constitution is not taken away by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, but that power is required to be exercised within the time prescribed under Section 20 of the Act.

1. - This is a bunch of a 15 appeals before us under Section 19 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act (No. LXX of 1971) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). As common question of limitation under Section 20 of the Act is involved in all the appeals, we consider it convenient to dispose them of by a common order.

2. Writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution were filed by the respondents. On the stay applications, ad interim orders were passed by which, the respondents were required to deliver 65% stock of sugar held by them on the date of the commencement of the Sugar (Retention and Sale by Recognised Dealers) Order, 1979. The price to be paid was Rs. 323/- per qntl. In spite of the intimation by the State Government, as envisaged by the interim orders, the respondents failed to deliver the sugar to the Government. Thereafter, the State of Rajasthan moved applications for initiating the contempt proceedings against the respondents under Section 12 of the Act. On these applications, the court ordered for issuance of notices to the contemners. The applications were filed within one year from the date of the commission of the contempt. It is, however, admitted that notices were ordered to be issued after the expiry of period of one year from the date of the commission of the contempt. The applications for amendment of the original applications for contempt were moved by the State Government. The amendment sought was to the effect that the applications may be treated as under Art. 215 of the Constitution and in the alternative under Order 39, Rule 2-A, Civil Procedure Code In some of the applications, the amendment was allowed whereas in some, the orders therein were not passed. The applications for taking action for contempt were disposed of assuming that they were not only under Section 12 of the Act, but were also the applications under Art. 215 of the Constitution as well as under Order 39, Rule 2A, Civil Procedure Code The learned single Judge, by a common order dated Feb. 7, 1983, dismissed the applications holding that the proceedings have been initiated beyond the period of limitation. Aggrieved, these appeals have been filed as aforesaid.

3. It was contended that the view taken by the learned single Judge is erroneous as under Art. 215 of the Constitution, the High Court, being a court of record has all the powers of such a Court inclusive of the power to punish for contempt and, therefore, limitation provided under Section 20 of the Act cannot operate as a bar. In other words, it was submitted that the High Court has inherent powers to punish for its contempt. Learned Government Advocate further urged that Section 22 of the Act makes it clear that the Act merely codifies the existing law, relating to contempt of court in contempt matters and the High Court, in exercise of its powers under Art. 215, can punish for the contempt. It was, thus, submitted that the applications for contempt have been wrongly dismissed on the ground of limitation. We proceed to examine this contention.

4. Section 20 of the Act reads as under:-

"20. Limitations for actions 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."
This section lays down the period of limitation for initiating the proceedings for contempt. It is clear from this section that the period is to be counted from the date when the court initiates the proceedings for contempt either suo motu or otherwise.

5. The expression "initiate any proceedings" was considered in Baradakanta v. Misra C. J., Orissa H. C. AIR 1974 Supreme Court 2255 : (1975 Cri LJ 1) wherein, it was observed in para 7, as follows:-

"The motion or reference is only for the purpose of drawing the attention of the Court to the contempt alleged to have been committed and it is for the Court, on a consideration of such motion or reference t