Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)
Emperor vs Benjamin Guy Horniman on 8 November, 1943 cites

H.D. Rajah vs C.H. Witherington And Anr. on 14 March, 1934

5. He then goes on to say that he knows of no power in his Court to arrest a person for contempt of the Allahabad High Court and a fortiori there is no such power in the Chief Presidency Magistrate or in the Commissioner of Police. The learned Chief Justice then considers the applicability of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he says that, since the alleged contempt was not an offence under the Penal Code or under any other law within the meaning of Section 5 (2), Criminal P.C. this Court had no jurisdiction to issue process against the respondent. If the view taken by the learned Judges at Bombay is correct, it may lead to somewhat startling results. A person may commit the grossest contempt of one of the High Courts and may then slip across the boundary into the territorial limits of an adjoining High Court and, so long as he remains there, he will enjoy complete immunity. However, it does not necessarily follow from this that the view of the High Court at Bombay is erroneous, for does sometimes happen that anomalous results arise from a correct interpretation of the law and where these are sufficiently serious action may have to be taken by the Legislature. As we have already seen, the learned Chief Justice of Bombay has referred to H.D. Rajah v. C.H. Witherington ('34) 21 A.I.R. 1934 Mad. 423. In that case the offence was apparently committed at Madras-or so I infer, but the persons committing it were residing at Calcutta. At p. 831 the learned Judges say:
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1