AIR 1964 SUPREME COURT 1773 ::1965 MadLJ(Cri) 588 ::1964 7 SCR 237 ::1965 2 SCJ 329 ::1965 (1) SCWR 42 ::1965 SCD 219

Supreme Court Of India

(From Calcutta : AIR 1959 Cal 293)

Hon'ble Judge(s): Ajit Kumar Sarkar, M. Hidayatullah, J. R. Mudholkar , JJJ

(A) Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.211— Institution of criminal proceedings - False charge - Charge of having committed contempt of Court - Held amounted to falsely charging (Per Sarkar and Mudholkar JJ.) - Held amounted to institution of criminal proceedings (Per Hidayatullah, J.). Per Sarkar J. : Assuming that a proceeding for committal for contempt of court is not a criminal proceeding within the meaning of that expression as used in S. 211, the section also says that falsely charging a person with the commission of an offence would be an offence under it. When Section 211 says that an offence under it may be committed by falsely charging a person with the commission of an offence, it does not intend that the offence must be one which gives rise to a criminal proceeding. Under the definition of offence in S. 40 the word 'offence' in S. 211 means an offence punishable under the Code or under any special or local law as defined in it. Section 41 defines a special law as a law applicable to a particular subject. Now the Contempt of Courts Act is an Act dealing with the subject of contempt of courts and is, therefore, a special law. It also provides for punishment for contempt of court by simple imprisonment up to six months, subject to certain conditions mentioned. A charge of having committed a contempt of court is, therefore, a c....