The High Court has jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings suo motu in a case of civil contempt, and the contempt must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

VENKATARAMAN, J. :- This is an appeal against the judgement of Ramanujam, J., convicting the appellant, Yegnanarayaniah, of contempt and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The facts are these. One Subbanna created a trust called 'Vavilla Venkateswara Sastrulu Trust' by deed dated 30-6-1956. She was the sole trustee during her life and she appointed the appellant (her sister's son-in-law) as the sole trustee after her death. The appellant took charge as sole trustee on 12-9-1958. She left a will in respect of her private properties and appointed the appellant as executor. On the alienation that the appellant did not perform any of the charities mentioned in the trust deed and misappropriated certain amounts, some persons filed a suit, C. S. 88 of 1970, seeking the removal of the appellant from the trusteeship. During the pendency of the suit, the appellant and an advocate Sri S.S. Marthandam were appointed joint receivers. After an elaborate trial, Ramanujam, J., found that the appellant has diverted an amount of Rupees 1,22,769, from the trust fund to the executor's account without any authority or justification, in addition to the various enormous amounts misappropriated by him. He also found that he had lent a sum of Rupees 1,00,000 to his wife at a nominal interest at 74 per cent, per annum in the year 1967. This amount was not really available for investment because necessary public dues like income-tax, wealth tax, estate duty etc, had not been paid. In effect he found that the appellant had wrongfully diverted the funds, when questioned about the loan in his evidence at the trial, the appellant stated that he had taken as collateral security by deposit of title deeds of the property of his wife, namely, door No. 495, Thiruvottiyur High Road, Ramanujam, J., decreed the suit, directed the appellant to be removed from the trusteeship and ordered him to hand over the management of the properties of the trust to the Official Trustee, Madras, The appellant handed over some documents but not the documents relating to the deposit of title deeds by his wife in respect of does No. 495 Tiruvottiyur High Road.

2. An Application No. 184 of 1973 was made by the plaintiffs for directions to the appellant to produce the deeds, Ramanujam, J,, by order dated 9-2-1973, directed the appellant to produce the said deeds within a week. By his further order dated 17-2-1973, he directed the appellant to be present in court on the hearing date, namely, 22-2-1973. The appellant did not appear on that date and did not produce the documents. Thereupon Ramanujam, J., by order dated 27-2-1973, directed him to appear before the court on 8-3-1973, to show cause why should not be proceed with for committing contempt of court in not complying with the orders of court dated 9-2-1973 and 17-2-1973. This notice was accordingly served on the appellant on 7-3-1973.

3. The appellant filed an affidavit in answer to this show cause notice. He stated therein that he was not in possession of title deeds relating to door No. 495 Tiruvcttiyur High Road, belonging to his wife. We are not concerned with the other title deeds. Ramanujam, J., however, held by order dated 16-3-1973, that it was a belated statement, that his conduct showed that he was in possession of the title deeds which he accepted as collateral security for the loan advanced to his wife, that he wilfully suppressed them, that he was actuated, by fraudulent motive in not bringing the documents because he had allowed the promissory note to become time-barred, and for enforcing the mortgage, for which a longer period of limitation was available the title deeds would be required and that the appellant wanted to put obstacles in the way of the Official Trustee recovering the loan and that was why he did not produce the documents. The conduct of the appellant being highly reprehensible, the learned Judge imposed the maximum punishment provided under