Reg. Vs. Parsapa Mahadevapa - Court Judgment
|Subject||Contempt of Court|
|Judge||Melvill and ;Nanabhai Haridas, JJ.|
contempt of court - criminal procedure code (act x of 1872), sections 435, 436, 471, 472, and 473--nuisance, injunction to discontinue--indian penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 291. - .....allahabad high court--queen v. kultaram (i.l.r. 1 all, 129)--in holding that section 473 of the criminal procedure code, when it says that no court shall try any person for an offence committed in contempt of its own authority, is to be limited to offences falling under chap. x of the indian penal code. the reasons given by the madras high court (proceedings, 24th march 1873) (7 mad. h.c. rep. appendix xvii), for extending the section, at all events, to the offences against public justice and the offences relating to documents mentioned in sections 468 and 469 of the criminal procedure code are, in the court's mind, conclusive; and a division bench of this court [reg. v. navranbeg (10 bom. h.c. rep., 73)] seems to have been of opinion that the section must be held applicable to all.....
1. The Court does not think that it can follow the Allahabad High Court--Queen v. Kultaram (I.L.R. 1 All, 129)--in holding that Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when it says that no Court shall try any person for an offence committed in contempt of its own authority, is to be limited to offences falling under Chap. X of the Indian Penal Code. The reasons given by the Madras High Court (Proceedings, 24th March 1873) (7 Mad. H.C. Rep. Appendix XVII), for extending the section, at all events, to the offences against public justice and the offences relating to documents mentioned in Sections 468 and 469 of the Criminal Procedure Code are, in the Court's mind, conclusive; and a Division Bench of this Court [Reg. v. Navranbeg (10 Bom. H.C. Rep., 73)] seems to have been of opinion that the section must be held applicable to all contempts of Court. If the limitation imposed upon the section by the Allahabad Court be removed, as the Court thinks it must, the section must necessarily be held applicable to the case now before it; for the continuance of a nuisance, after the Magistrate's injunction to desist, is clearly a contempt of the Magistrate's