JUDGMENT

Sulaiman, C.J. - This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from an order convicting the applicants, an Advocate and Editor and a Printer and Publisher of the offence of contempt of Court, and sentencing the advocate to a fine of Rs. 150 and ordering each of the three persons to pay Rs. 100 as costs. The offence is found to have been committed on account of the publication of an article by him headed "A scandalous citation" in the Leader. The counsel for the applicant contends that his application for leave falls u/s 109, Civil P.C., and urges before us that the order of the High Court has been passed in the exercise of its civil jurisdiction, particularly as the original notice issued to him was headed "Civil Side Revisional Jurisdiction."

2. The learned Government Advocate takes preliminary objection that no application for leave to appeal lies inasmuch as : (1) contempt is a criminal matter and the punishment is in the exercise of the criminal jurisdiction of the High Court, and (2) that the inherent jurisdiction exercised by this Court as a Court of record is exclusive and the order passed is final.

3. The first question for consideration is whether proceedings for contempt of the High Court are tit all in the nature of a civil proceeding. A Division Bench of this Court took cognizance of contempt committed by the publication of the advocate's article. The Bench ordered notices to be issued to the advocate as well as the Editor and the Printer and the Publisher of the paper "to show cause why they should not be convicted and punished for the offence of contempt of this Court." In the order itself as signed by the Judge, there was no suggestion that the notice was being issued in the exercise of any Civil Jurisdiction. On the other hand, as the opposite party were called upon to show cause why they should not be convicted and punished' for the offence of contempt, the order was prima facie in the exercise of the criminal jurisdiction or the inherent jurisdiction of this Court. The office numbered the case as "Miscellaneous Case No. 435 of 1934", and on the day's list also the case was shown simply as "Miscellaneous Case No. 435 of 1934" without mentioning that it was a Miscellaneous Civil case. But the notice that was issued by the office of the advocate was written out on a printed form which had the words "Civil Side Jurisdiction" printed on it. The notice was issued under the signature of the Deputy Registrar, and the printed words were not struck out, but the word "Revisional" was added. The contents of the notice however warned the advocate to appear personally to show cause why he should not be convicted and punished for the offence of contempt of the High Court committed by the publication. The advocate could not possibly have been misled by the issue of the notice on a printed form used for notices on the Civil Side. No particular form of the notice is prescribed by the rules of this Court. The advocate had been called upon to appear in order that he may have an opportunity to show cause. We are therefore unable to hold that a mere misdescription in the notice issued by the office could in any sense, make the proceeding one of a civil nature. The advocate could not have been under any misapprehension as to the true character of the proceeding. We are of opinion that the form used for the notice is wholly immaterial for the purposes of deciding what the nature of the jurisdiction exercised was and that the misdescription was of too trivial a nature and cannot possibly confer civil jurisdiction on the High Court.

4. We have not the least doubt in our minds that the proceedings were in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court and of criminal nature. We would not say that merely because the advocate was an officer of this Court, the proceeding against him was of an administrative character. The conviction and the fine imposed are themselves sufficient to show at least that t