Find a Lawyer

Criminal Appeal No. 88 of 1955, decided on 10^th January, 1956.

, S. 411‑A Appeal to High Court from conviction by Single Judge, for contempt of Court‑Does not lie‑Punishing contempts‑Inherent jurisdiction of High Court, not "original criminal jurisdiction ".

Power to punish contempts of Court falls under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court and not under original criminal jurisdiction. Appeal to the High Court, from an order of conviction for contempt, in proceedings held before a Single judge, is, therefore, not competent., Appeal in such a case lies only to the Federal Court.

The High Court as such has an inhereri jurisdiction to punish for contempts of itself and subordinate Courts. The Contempt of Courts Act does not confer this power on the High Court ; it merely defines it.

Murray Gow Purdy v. Emperor, A I R (1947) Bom. 184 ref.

Dharamdas for Appellant.

Nasiruddin for Crown.

--The appellant was convicted by our learned brother Bachal, J. under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentenced to S. I. for one month. He has come in appeal under the provisions of section 411‑A, Criminal P. C.

The Official Assignee of this Court was appointed guardian of the property of a minor and was further entrusted with the administration of the entire property of the deceased father of the minor who, besides the minor, had other two heirs also. He was directed by this Court to take possession of Hilal‑e‑Pakistan Press at Hyderabad and to dispose of it by sale. In compliance with this order he took pos session of the place and locked and sealed it on 26th July 1954. Later on, he had to depute his rent collector and another person to open the premises and remove some nuisances for which there had been a complaint. These people went there after notice to the parties on 12th December 1954 at about 11 a. m. They opened the premises and had them cleaned. While they were about to re‑lock the pre mises the appellant kicked them out and prevented them from locking and sealing the premises. The Official Assignee then filed Miscellaneous Application No. 14 of 1954 in this Court requesting for action being taken against the opponent for hiving committed contempt of this Court. Notice was issued to the opponent, and after the parties were heard, the appellant was punished under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act as stated above.

A preliminary objection has been taken regarding the maintainability of the appeal under section 411‑A Criminal P. C., and we think this objection must prevail. Section 411‑A (1) reads as follows

" Without prejudice to the provisions of section 449 any person convicted on a trial held by a High Court in the exercise of its original criminal jurisdiction may, notwithstanding anything contained in section 418 or section 423, subsection (2), or in the Letters Patent of any High Court, appeal to the High Court ".

Now this new section was introduced in the Criminal P. C. by the Criminal Procedure Amendment Act XXVI of 1943, the preamble to which Act reads as follows:

Whereas it is expedient to make certain provision for appeals in criminal cases tried by a High Court exercising original criminal jurisdiction ;

It is hereby enacted as follows

In A I R (1944) Vol. 31, journal Acts (Imperial Acts Section) the following notes appear at the foot of page 1

" Notes.‑The Letters Patent of the various High Courts prohibit appeals in criminal cases against the decisions of a High Court exercising original jurisdiction but provide a restricted power of review. The Code of Criminal Procedure provides by section 449 for appeals from decisions in casts tried before a High Court by a jury under the special provisions of Chap. 33 but contains no provision for appeals in similar trials not held under that chapter. The pres4int amending Act provides for a right of appeal in criminal cases tried by a High Court exercising its' original jurisdiction ".

The question for determination in this case now is whether the appellant was convicted in a criminal case tried by a Judge of this Court exercising original criminal juris diction We think not. The High Court as such has an inherent jurisdiction to punish for contempt of itself and subordinate Courts. The Contempt of Courts Act does not confer this power on the High Court. It merely defines the power. The preamble to the Contempt of Courts Act 1926 reads as follows

" Whereas doubts have arisen as to the powers of a High Court of judicature to punish contempts of Courts ;

And whereas it is expedient to resolve these doubts and to define and limit the powers exercisable by High Courts and Chief Courts in punishing Contempts of Courts ; it is hereby enacted as follows

It becomes clear therefore that the appellant was con victed, by a Judge of this High Court who was sitting in the exercise of his inherent jurisdiction and in such a case there is no inherent right of appeal to the High Court. The appeal in such a case would lie only to the Federal Court of Pakistan. We are fortified in our view by the ruling of the Bombay High Court in the case of Murray Gow Purdy v. Emperor (A I R (1947) Bom. 184). It was held in that case that

" In a criminal matter an appeal can lie only under some statutory or other specific provision. Section 411‑A pro vides for appeals by persons convicted on a trial held by a High Court in the exercise of its original criminal jurisdiction. But trials by the High Court are by jury. Therefore, section 411‑A does not give the High Court power to interfere in appeal against an order of convic tion for contempt which has been dealt with by a Judge of the High Court acting alone in summary proceedings. Nor has the High Court an inherent jurisdiction to enter tain an appeal in such a case. The only remedy of the convicted person is by way of an application to His Majesty ".

In the course of that judgment their Lordships made the following observation

" One thing that is obvious in this case is that this is a case of criminal contempt; and whatever may be the powers of the High Court to interfere with contempts committed in respect of the civil jurisdiction of itself or of any other Court, those powers will not apply in a case like this. It being a criminal matter, an appeal can lie only under some statutory or other specific provision. At present the amended section 411‑A, Criminal P. C., provides for appeals by persons convicted on a trial held by a High Court in the exercise of its original criminal jurisdiction. But trials held by the High Court are by jury; and this contempt has been dealt with by a judge acting alone in summary proceedings. Clearly therefore section 411‑A will not give this Court power to interfere. Before the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code, it may be that clause 41, Letters Patent would have given the applicant a remedy by way of appeal. But section 7 of Act XXVI of 1943 (the Act which has enacted the new section 411‑A) repeals clause 41, Letters Patent. There is nothing left except the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court; and the question is whether the inherent jurisdiction governs a case of this kind.

Every subject of His Majesty has an inherent right of appeal to His Majesty (see for example 38 Bom. L R 681); and, as their Lordships said, there is no limit to the extent of the prerogative of the Crown in such matters. But it does not follow that the subject has an inherent right of appeal to a High Court; and, we are satisfied that in this case the High Court has no inherent jurisdiction to entertain any such appeal ".

In view of all these reasons we have no doubt that this appeal does not lie to this Court by virtue of section 411‑A Criminal P. C. We accordingly dismiss this application.

A. H. Application dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.