The High Court can take suo motu cognizance of contempt of a subordinate court based on verified information, notwithstanding the absence of a formal reference or motion from the Advocate-General.

JUDGMENT:

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 294 of 1974.

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.4.1978 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc. Contempt Case No. 115/73.

O. P. Rana for the Appellant.

J. P. Goyal and Pramod Swarup for the Intervener.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SARKARIA, J. This appeal is directed against an order, dated April 10, 1974, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in 333 Criminal Misc. Contempt Case No. 115 of 1973. It raises a question of law as to the jurisdiction and powers of a High Court to take action suo motu under Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The material facts giving rise to this appear are as follows:

Raj Narain alias Raja Sharma, Ram Narain, Tapesh Narain alias Trilok Narain and Hari Narain, respondents instituted Suit No. 89/ 168 under Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari & Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for ejectment of eleven defendants.

Issue No. 6 framed in the case was referred under Section 331A of the Act to the Revenue Officer, Sub- Divisional Office, for seeking declaration under Section 143 or 144 of that Act, with regard to the question as to whether the land in suit was abadi land before the consolidation and even thereafter. The Revenue Officer by his order, dated September 3, 1970, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Meerut, who, by his order dated April 29, 1972, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit with costs.

Against the decree of the Commissioner, the defendants preferred Revenue Second Appeal No. 226(2) of 1971-72 before the Revenue Board. Along with the petition of appeal, they made an application for stay of the execution of the ejectment decree. The Board of Revenue passed an order on June 12, 1972, staying the execution of the decree. The opposite party therein, moved an application for vacation of the ex-parte stay order. The application for vacation of stay order came up for hearing before the appellant, herein, in his capacity as Member of the Revenue Board, on October 23, 1973. The respondent, Shri Vinay Chandra Misra appeared as a counsel in that Court on behalf of the appellant therein, to oppose the vacation of the stay order. What happened thereafter on that day, according to the allegations in the petition and affidavit, dated October 23, 1973, of Shri V. C. Misra, Advocate filed before the High Court, was as follows:

"That on the said date the opposite party (appellant herein) heard the counsel of the parties in the case and was pleased to confirm the stay order.

6. That even after passing of the order aforesaid the counsel of (the respondent in that appeal) addressed the Court (opposite party) further and during the course of his arguments, the opposite party (appellant herein) scored the order and vacated the stay order and threw the file for getting the signatures of the parties affixed on the same.

334

7. That on this, the deponent (Shri V. N. Mishra) requested the opposite party to hear him and when he resisted, the opposite party got infuriated, lost his temper and abused the applicant and ordered the Court peon to throw the deponent physically out of the Court....."

On the preceding facts, Shri Misra, on October 23, 1973, filed a petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against the appellant, herein, in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, alleging that since the facts stated in the petition and the affidavit, supporting it, show that the "opposite party (appellant herein) committed the contempt of his own Court as that of the High Court as provided under Section 15 /16 of the Contempt of Courts Act punishable under Section 12 of the said Act, he deserves to be punished for the same in order to save the dignity, decorum and honour of his Court and that of the Hon’ble High Court". Shri V. C. Misra further prayed that the High Court "be pleased to take suo motu action unde