The High Court has no inherent power to review or recall its judgment and order of conviction and sentence in contempt proceedings.

S. R. BHARGAVA, J.

( 1 ) IN Writ Petition No. 484 of 1982 Baldeo Raj was petitioner. He made certain scandalous allegations against Shri S. D. N. Singh, the then District Judge, Allahabad. This writ petition was decided by Honble Mr. Justice J. M. L. Sinha (now retired ). In his order dated 8-2-1982 he inter alia mentioned that there were serious allegations constituting criminal contempt. Hence he proposed that record be placed before appropriate Division Bench for examination whether notice should or should not be issued.

( 2 ) DIVISION Bench of Honble Mr. Justice P. N. Karkauli (retired) and Honble Mr. Justice Wahajuddin (retired) went through the record and the order passed by Honble Mr. Justice J. M. L. Sinha (retired) and by order dated 6/03/1982 arrived at the opinion that it was a fit case for taking cognizance of the alleged contempt case. Then notice was issued to Baldeo Raj. It was served personally on him as required under section 17 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Charge was framed and was also served upon him. It does not appear from the record that he filed affidavit in support of his defence as laid down in S. 17 (5) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. On the other hand, he moved repeated applications for withdrawal of notice. On 20/05/1983 the aforementioned Division Bench convicted Baldeo Raj of the offence of criminal Contempt of Court and sentenced him to two months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000. 00. In default of payment of fine he was to further undergo one month simple imprisonment. He was taken into custody. He moved bail application which was allowed.

( 3 ) THE very next day Baldeo Raj moved the application under disposal. He prayed for recalling of the judgment and order dated 20/05/1983.

( 4 ) ON 29/07/1983 this application was dismissed without hearing Baldeo Raj. He moved application that his recall application was dismissed without hearing him hence the order dated 29/07/1983 be set aside and he may be heard on his recall application. In our order dated 6/12/1990 the application for recall of judgment and order dated 20/07/1981 was treated as review petition. We allowed the application for setting aside of order dated 29/07/1983 and directed that review petition be listed for consideration. Thereafter, we heard Baldeo Raj and learned A. G. A. representing the State at length.

( 5 ) LEARNED A. G. A. raised preliminary point that an application for recall or review judgment and order convicting a person for criminal contempt does not lie. He relied upon Ss. 362 and 482 of Criminal P. C. He submitted that this court has no inherent power of recall or review. He cited various rulings before us, some of which can be mentioned here, namely, Mahesh v. State, 1971 AWR (HC) 255 : (1971 Cri LJ 1674) (FB); State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Agarwal, AIR 1979 SC 87: (1979 Cri LJ 33); Raj Narain v. State, AIR 1959 All 315 : (1959 Cri LJ 543) (FB); Mst. Simdukhiya v. Smt. Doli Mukherji alias Smt. Chhabbi Mukherji, AIR 1990 SC 1605: (1990 Cri LJ 1599); Suchi Ram v. Hashim, AIR 1959 SC 542: (1959 Cri LJ 658) and Sanktha Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1208 : (1962 (2) Cri LJ 288 ).

( 6 ) BALDEO Raj argued his case himself. His contention was that powers of a High Court to punish for contempt of Court flow from Art. 215 of the Constitution of India which lays down that every High Court shall be a Court of record and shall have all the powers of such a Court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is a special Act and lays down procedure for punishing citizen for contempt of Court.

( 7 ) S. 5 of Criminal P. C. is the saving provision. It lays as under:-"saving- Nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document