1. This is a petition for a certificate of fitness for an appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134(c) of the Constitution of India.
2. Proceedings were taken against the opponent for contempt on the ground that he in the course of his petition for transfer to a Magistrate before whom his case was pending and while he was sitting as a Court made allegations against him imputing partiality and corruption.
It was found by this Court that the act of the opponent in submitting the petition to the Magistrate for securing transfer of his case while he was sitting as a Court of the mature aforesaid amounted to a gross insult offered to the Magistrate but it was further held that under the circumstances of the case the High Court had no jurisdiction to punish him for contempt by the summary proceedings as the act of the opponent fell under Section 228, I.P.C. and he could be tried and adequately punished thereunder.
3. Present petition is for obtaining certificate under Article 134(c) of the Constitution of India that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court as the question involved in this case is of a great public importance.
4. Government Advocate Mr. Sharma who moved this application contended that the decision of the Supreme Court in - 'Ramakrishna Reddy v. State of Madras : 1952CriLJ832 made it clear that in order to oust the jurisdiction of the High Court the act complained of must be punishable as contempt under the Penal Code.
He, therefore, urged that if the act is something more than a bare insult such as scandalising the Court by attributing partiality and corruption then it is insult plus something more. And in so far as it is something more it can be dealt with by the High Court. He contended that every act of scandalisation will cause insult but every insult will not involve scandalisation.
5. I am unable to appreciate the argument. There is the single act of the accused. It amounts to an insult offered to the Judge while he is sitting as a Court. The jurisdiction of the High Court is ousted in so far as it is an insult. How is it, possible to dissect that act and hold that the act in so far as it is an insult cannot be dealt with under the summary jurisdiction of the High Court in the matter of contempt but in so far as it is an attack on the impartiality and integrity of the Magistrate it can be so dealt.
6. Insult to a Judge can be caused in various ways. Challenge given on his face regarding his impartiality and integrity is one of such ways. The moment it is an insult given on his face it falls under Section 228, I.P.C. The contemner can be adequately punished by recourse to ordinary Criminal law. His act is punishable as contempt under the Penal Code.
7. It, therefore, does not appeal to me that once the act of the contemner is taken out of purview of the jurisdiction of the High Court on the ground that it is an insult as contemplated by Section 228, I.P.C. anything is left for being dealt with.
8. I am not satisfied that the point involved is of great public importance particularly where the contemner can adequately be punished under Section 228, I.P.C.
9. This is, therefore, not a fit case for the grant of a certificate prayed for under Article 134(c) of the Constitution of India.
10. The application is, therefore, rejected.
11. I agree.