The jurisdiction of the High Court to take cognizance of contempt is barred under S. 3 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952, where the alleged contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code.

M. ANANTANARAYANAN, OFFG. C.J. :- The respondent in these proceedings is Sri Amanullakhan, a member of the Salem Bar, and the proceedings have been initiated by the learned Advocate General under S. 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 32 of 1952 and Art, 215 of the Constitution of India. We may here briefly state that the proceedings have been thus initiated upon a report by Sri K. P. Madhavacharya, Additional First Class Magistrate I, Salem, whose affidavit is on the record. Equally, there are two affidavits on record, on behalf of the respondent, the first being that of the respondent himself, and the second that of a member of the Salem Bar, Sri P. S. Mari Chetty, who claims to have been present on the occasion of the incident which led to the contempt proceedings.

2. A very brief conspectus of the facts, as set forth in the affidavit the Magistrate, will be sufficient. The Magistrate states that, on 28th June 1965, after he pronounced judgments in three cases convicting the concerned accused under S. 4 (1) (a) and (b) of the Madras Prohibition Act, he took up C. C. 2896 of 1965 for trial, in which the accused was one Kaliammal charged under S. 4 (1) (a) of the Madras Prohibition Act, and defended by the respondent (Sri Amanullakhan). The affidavits on record make it abundantly clear that one of the matters in controversy was the actual capacity or volume of the particular container (M. O. 1) which was alleged to have contained illicit liquor; apparently, this was a point of some significance, as impinging on the credibility of the evidence for the prosecution. It is however clear that the Sub-Inspector of police, the investigating officer, who was in Court, was permitted to make a suggestion to Court about the capacity of this receptacle, based on the measure (4 kg) printed on the outside. The respondent seems to have strongly objected to this, because the Magistrate was inclined to act on the suggestion of the Sub-Inspector, by permitting re-examination of the witness, and the point of the respondent was that it was illegal thus to permit an officer, who had conducted the investigation, to take part in the trial. As far as we can gather from the record, the point of objection urged by the respondent had much plausibility and force behind it, and we are satisfied that the respondent was bona fide concerned for the consequences of a procedure, with regard to his client, which seemed to him, to be illegal.

3. However that might be, the further version of the Magistrate is that, at this juncture, the respondent (Sri Amanullakhan) burst forth into a violent demonstration in Court, and also flung the container (Dalda tin) on the table of the Magisterial clerk, and generally conducted himself in such an undignified and disorderly manner, as to interrupt the proceedings. The respondent is then supposed to have uttered some words, which the Magistrate has quoted and set forth in page 3 of his affidavit. The following sentences have to be particularly stressed as, indisputably, they may amount to insult of Court or contempt of Court, if they had been the precise words used by the respondent.

They are:

"We know that what is taking place and we know how to deal with your Honour...... Hereafter we know how to deal with you. We cannot tolerate the attitude of this Court in supporting the prosecution like this."

The learned Government Pleader contended that if these words were the actual words used by the respondent, they go beyond mere insult, since the words are levelled as accusations against the administration of justice in the Court, and are likely, by their effect, to bring that administration into disrepute. According to the learned Government Pleader, this certainly constitutes contempt of Court, and not mere interruption of Court and insult to the officer, which would be a separate offence punishable under S. 228, I. P. C. The affidavits of the respondent and the member of the Bar who was then present, contain a flat denial o