9911796707
TMI Blog1935 (5) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion, or in any criminal cage where any point or points of law have been reserved for the opinion of the said High Court in manner hereinbefore provided, by any Court which has exercised original jurisdiction, it shall be lawful for the persons aggrieved by such judgment, order, or sentence to appeal to us, Our heirs or successors in council, provided the said High Court shall declare that the case is a fit one for such appeal and under such conditions as the said High Court may establish or require, subject always to such rules and orders as We may, with the advice of our Privy Council, hereafter make in that behalf. 2. Mr. Banerji who makes this application asks for a certificate for a declaration by us that the case is a fit one for appeal. He says that the order was made in the exercise of original criminal jurisdiction of this Court and that thereby he or his clients come within cl. 41. In my view proceedings for contempt of Court do not come within the phrase original criminal jurisdiction of this Court. The power of this Court, which is a Court of Record, to punish for contempt is derived--as was pointed out by Sir Barnes Peacock in the case of Surendra Nath Banerjee L. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure, though it may be that in certain aspects they are quasi-criminal; in my view they are not exercised as part of the original criminal jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently the application must fail. But I will consider the matter one step further. If it should be, contrary to my view, that proceedings for contempt of this Court are made or done in the exercise of its original criminal jurisdiction, it seems to me that this Court would not even in such having regard to the decision of the Privy Council, declare under cl. 41 that this case is a fit one for appeal to the Privy Council. This case is in its essentials a similar case to that of Surendra Nath Banerjee's L. R. 10 I. A. 171; s. c. I. L. R. 18 Cal. 109 (1883). In that case Sir Barnes Peacock--I am now quoting from p. 132 of volume 10 of the I. L. R., Calcutta series--says Their Lordships having decided that the libel was a contempt of Court, and that the High Court had jurisdiction to commit the Petitioner for a period of two months, the case is not a proper one for an appeal to Her Majesty. In the case of Rainy v. The Justices of Sierra Leone 8 Moo. P. C. C. 47 (1853), 8 Moore's P.C.C. 47 at p.54, upon an ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at there was something in the order committing the Appellant which rendered it improper, and therefore the subject of appeal. Then after deciding that the Court at Sierra Leone was a Court of Record, His Lordship says (498): 'Not a single case is to be found, where there has been a committal by one of the colonial Courts for contempt, where it appeared clearly upon the face of the order that the party had committed a contempt, that he had been duly summoned, and that the punishment awarded for the contempt was an appropriate one, in which this Committee has ever entertained an appeal against an order of this description.' Again, after referring to the authorities, and amongst others to Rainy's case 8 Moo. P. C. C. 47 (1853), his Lordship concluded by saying: 'Under these circumstances their Lordships entertain no doubt whatever as to the propriety of deciding that in this case the leave to appeal ought not to have been granted; that the Supreme Court of Justice was a Court of Record; and that, as a Court of Record, it had power to commit for the particular contempt. As their Lordships do not enter into the merits of the case, they will say nothing as to the characte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to consider the question whether there was contempt of Court in a man in lending a newspaper which contained scandalous matters and he decides that it was not. 6. Now, Mr. Banerji says that the words committals for contempt of Court by scandalising the Court itself have become obsolete indicate that there is no longer jurisdiction in this Court to exercise this summary procedure. That argument of course was raised when these applicants were before the Court and was dealt with in the judgment which was then delivered. But with deference to the argument of Mr. Banerji, I would like to point out that that statement committals for contempt of Court by scandalising the Court itself have become obsolete in this country is a statement of fact relating to England and Wales. It is a statement of fact which is proved to be incorrect, because in the following year there was the case of Regina v. Gray [1900] 2 Q. B. 36: 4 C. W. N. cxlvi (146), (1900) 2 Q. B. 36, in which the Courts in England punished the writer of a certain matter in a newspaper which scandalised a Judge. Again in 1928, the Courts in England punished the editor of The New Statesman in respect of some matter which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . R. 10 I. A. 171 s. c. I. L. R. 10 Cal. 109 (1883), in my view, puts this matter beyond all question whatever and indicates that when this Court as a Court of Record thinks it fit to exercise summary jurisdiction and under that jurisdiction punishes for a contempt of Court it is not open to the person concerned to ask this Court for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. 10. With regard to the observation of Lord Morris in the case of McLeod v. St. Aubyn L. R. [1899] A. C. 549; 3 C. W. N. cccxlvi (346), (L. R. 1899 Appeal Cases 549), as I pointed out in the judgment which I gave when this matter was before the Court on the 8th of April last, that observation is clearly not only in the nature of an obiter dictum, but a statement which could only have been intended to express the opinion of the learned Judge with regard to the state of fact existing in England at the time the observation was made. But whether one takes that observation as a statement of fact or even as an expression of opinion with regard to the state of the law, it is obvious from the subsequent events--from the proceedings and decisions in cases which have occurred since the time of Lord Morris--that that o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
