1953 (9) TMI 38 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether contempt of court is an offence within the meaning of Section 5(2), Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
2. Whether the procedure prescribed by CrPC for the investigation, inquiry, and trial of an offence must be followed in contempt proceedings.
3. Whether the alleged contemner is an accused person within the meaning of Section 5, Oaths Act, 1873.
4. Whether the alleged contemner is a person "accused of an offence" within the meaning of Article 20(3) of the Constitution and can be cross-examined on an affidavit voluntarily made.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether Contempt of Court is an Offence within the Meaning of Section 5(2), CrPC:

The court analyzed the definition of "offence" as per Section 4(o) of the CrPC, which states that an offence is "any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force." It was argued that contempt of court is an act made punishable by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926, and thus should be considered an offence. However, the court concluded that contempt of court is not an act made punishable by statute law but is punishable under the inherent and supervisory powers of the court. The court referred to historical context and legal precedents to emphasize that the jurisdiction to punish for contempt is inherent in courts of record and not conferred by any statute. Hence, contempt of court does not fall within the definition of "offence" under Section 5(2), CrPC.

2. Whether the Procedure Prescribed by CrPC for the Investigation, Inquiry, and Trial of an Offence Must be Followed in Contempt Proceedings:

Given the conclusion that contempt of court is not an offence within the meaning of Section 5(2), CrPC, the court held that the procedure prescribed by the CrPC for the investigation, inquiry, and trial of offences does not apply to contempt proceedings. The court reiterated that contempt proceedings are governed by the inherent powers of the courts of record and follow a special procedure established through judicial practice and precedents.

3. Whether the Alleged Contemner is an Accused Person within the Meaning of Section 5, Oaths Act, 1873:

Section 5 of the Oaths Act states that no oath shall be administered to an accused person in a criminal proceeding. The court held that a contemner is not an accused person within the meaning of the Oaths Act. The term "accused" refers to a person accused of an offence as defined in the CrPC. Since contempt of court is not considered an offence under the CrPC, a contemner does not fall within the scope of Section 5 of the Oaths Act.

4. Whether the Alleged Contemner is a Person "Accused of an Offence" within the Meaning of Article 20(3) of the Constitution and Can be Cross-Examined on an Affidavit Voluntarily Made:

Article 20(3) of the Constitution provides that no person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. The court held that a contemner is not a person accused of an offence within the meaning of Article 20(3). The term "offence" in Article 20(3) must be interpreted in the same manner as in the CrPC and the General Clauses Act, which do not include contempt of court. Consequently, if a contemner voluntarily makes an affidavit, he can be cross-examined on it. The court emphasized that the privilege against self-incrimination is an option and can be waived if the contemner voluntarily chooses to provide testimony.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that:
1. Contempt of court is not an offence within the meaning of Section 5(2), CrPC.
2. The procedure prescribed by CrPC for the investigation, inquiry, and trial of offences does not apply to contempt proceedings.
3. The alleged contemner is not an accused person within the meaning of Section 5, Oaths Act, 1873.
4. An alleged contemner is not a person accused of an offence within the meaning of Article 20(3) of the Constitution and can be cross-examined on an affidavit voluntarily made.