Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(4) Shri R. N. Malhtora, the learned Advocate representing Shri H C. Jatav, after repeating the unqualified apology tendered by his client, attempted to argue that this Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence of contempt because this offence is punishable under the Indian Penal Code. With the object of developing this argument, the learned counsel made a reference to section 175, Indian Penal Code, according to which a person, who being legally bound to produce or deliver up any document to any public servant, intentionally omits so to produce or deliver up the same, is liable to be punished with simple imprisonment or fine as prescribed therein. We informed the learned counsel that it was certainly his client's right, if he was so advised, even after tendering an unqualified apology on the merits of the case to question the jurisdiction of this Court under the law to proceed against bids client for contempt of Court, but in the present case, it was nto so much the intentional omission on the part of Shri Jatav to produce or deliver up the documents to the Court of the learned Magistrate as his disobedience of the orders issued by the Court of the learned Magistrate which constitutes the real gravamen of the offence of contempt of Court, and so far as this offence is concerned, section 175, Indian Penal Code, would hardly be relevant. Realizing the weakness of his position, the learned counsel gave up his attempt to question the jurisdiction of this Court.