The High Court does not have the power to review its judgment holding a person guilty of contempt of court. The power of the Court is confined to remission of the sentence awarded upon acceptance of an apology from the offender.

V. K. Mehrotra, J. : - By our judgment and order of November 28, 1988, in Criminal Contempt Petition No. 3 of 1986 (Senior Sub Judge, Dharamshala v. Ram Avtar Kansal) we had held respondent Kansal to be guilty of having committed criminal contempt within the meaning of S. 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act,1971. We had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one month. We also said in our order that in case respondent Kansal furnished a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1000/- to the Registrar of this Court within twenty four hours, the sentence awarded by us shall remain suspended for a period of six weeks to enable Sh. Kansal, if he so liked, to obtain appropriate orders, from the Supreme Court by filing an appeal.

2. On December 28, 1988, Ram Avtar Kansal presented an application under S. 482, Cr.P.C. in this Court. In it, he said that he was pleading innocence in view of the circumstances mentioned in the application and prayed that "the judgment order be reviewed and the punishment be revoked in the interest of justice." Also, that the review be listed for hearing after winter vacations. On February 23, 1989, he filed another application under S. 482, Cr. P.C. In the opening part of this application he said that he had filed the first application on December 28, 1988, and that the next application was in continuation thereof. In the last paragraph of this application he said that in the circumstances mentioned by him he was not guilty of any contempt. Also, that the punishment imposed upon him be withdrawn. In the sentence with which he concluded the application he said that, "my unconditional and unqualified apology filed on 7-1-1987 is already on the record which be accepted and punishment withdrawn". 3.The two applications filed by Shri Kansal on December 28, 1988, and February 23, 1989, were fixed for hearing on March 16 ,1989. Ram Avtar Kansal was presented in person and was heard by us. The only submission which was repeatedly made by Ram Avtar Kansal before us on that date was that, while deciding the contempt matter by our order dated November 28, 1988, we had omitted to take into consideration certain material on record, particularly, the second supplementary affidavit filed by him. We did not permit Ram Avtar Kansal to address us on the merits of two applications. The query which we repeatedly made to Ram Avtar Kansal was whether it was competent for this Court to review its decision. Ram Avtar Kansal only pointed out to the provisions of Section 482, Cr.P.C. and said that he had no authority to supplement the plea that this Court is competent to review its decision. We reserved our order on the question of maintainability of these applications. 4.The basic question which is to be considered by us is whether the judgment and order of November 28, 1988, can be reviewed by us, and if so, to what extent?

5. Contempt proceedings are quasi criminal proceedings. Consequently, the procedure adopted by the courts is akin to the one provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure. Of course, rules have been framed by some of the High Courts and, to that extent, the procedure provided therein is followed. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has framed "the Contempt of Court (Punjab and Haryana) Rules, 1971," in exercise of the powers under Section 23 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. These Rules are to be found at Appendix 10 page 807 in Aiyars Law of Contempt of Court 6th Edition, (Law Book Company).

6. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for brief, "the Act") provides for appeals under Section

19. It does not provide specifically for any power of review. However, Section 12(1) says that : "Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, or in any other law a contempt of court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both : Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be