1935 (5) TMI 30 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to commit individuals for contempt of court.
2. Applicability of clause 41 of the Letters Patent for appeals in contempt cases.
3. Nature and scope of contempt proceedings as part of the original criminal jurisdiction.
4. Relevance of historical and comparative legal precedents in contempt cases.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Commit Individuals for Contempt of Court:
The High Court of Calcutta examined whether it had the jurisdiction to commit individuals for contempt of court. The court affirmed its jurisdiction, referencing the case of Surendra Nath Banerjee, where it was established that a contempt of the High Court by a libel is an offense punishable by the High Court in a summary manner by fine or imprisonment, derived from the common law of England. The court held that contempt of court is an offense of a different character than defamation and is punishable by the High Court as a Court of Record.

2. Applicability of Clause 41 of the Letters Patent for Appeals in Contempt Cases:
The court considered whether clause 41 of the Letters Patent of 1865, which allows appeals to the Privy Council, applied to contempt proceedings. The court concluded that proceedings for contempt do not fall within the "original criminal jurisdiction" of the court as contemplated by clause 41. The court cited the Privy Council's decision in Surendra Nath Banerjee's case, which indicated that contempt of court is not an offense under the Indian Penal Code but is punishable by the High Court by virtue of the common law of England. Consequently, the application for a certificate declaring the case fit for appeal was dismissed.

3. Nature and Scope of Contempt Proceedings as Part of the Original Criminal Jurisdiction:
The court discussed the nature of contempt proceedings, emphasizing that they are not part of the original criminal jurisdiction of the court. Contempt proceedings are sui generis, derived from the common law of England, and are exercised by the High Court as a Superior Court of Record. The court highlighted that such proceedings are summary in nature and are not exercised under the ordinary criminal jurisdiction of the court.

4. Relevance of Historical and Comparative Legal Precedents in Contempt Cases:
The court examined historical and comparative legal precedents to support its decision. It referred to the case of McLeod v. St. Aubyn, where Lord Morris stated that committals for contempt by scandalizing the court had become obsolete in England. However, the court pointed out that this statement was factually incorrect, as subsequent cases in England had punished individuals for contempt. The court also noted that the statement was specific to England and did not apply to the legal context in India. The court reaffirmed the authority of the judgment in Surendra Nath Banerjee's case, which established that summary proceedings for contempt are competent and final, not open to appeal.

Conclusion:
The High Court of Calcutta dismissed the application for a certificate declaring the case fit for appeal to the Privy Council. The court held that it had the jurisdiction to commit individuals for contempt of court, that contempt proceedings do not fall within the original criminal jurisdiction of the court as per clause 41 of the Letters Patent, and that such proceedings are derived from the common law of England. The court also emphasized the finality of decisions in contempt proceedings, referencing historical and comparative legal precedents to support its judgment.