JUDGMENT Sankar Prasad Mitra, J. :- This Rule is directed against order No. 70 of the 7th December, 1971 of the Second Subordinate Judge at Alipore in Title Suit No. 62 of 1971. The plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of about twelve lakhs of rupees and for enforcement of certain mortgages. On July 28, 1971 the trial court made an ex parte order for appointment of a receiver of the mortgaged properties. Sri Satyanam Ghosal, an advocate of the said court was appointed receiver. 2. On 22nd October, 1971 Satyanam Ghosal complained to the trial Court that one Virendra Varma, the petitioner before us and a director of Jyoti Weaving Factory Private Ltd. the opposite party No. 4 was attempting to remove various goods which the Receiver had taken possession of. The complaint was made on information derived from the receiver's Durwan. 3. Thereafter, Satyanam Ghosal was discharged and Sudhansu Sekhar Banerjee, another advocate of the said court was appointed receiver. The trial Judge went into the complaint aforesaid made to him and by the impugned order he directed the defendant No. 2 (Virendra Varma) "to show cause within seven days from the date of return of the notice as to why he should not be committed for contempt." 4. The question that arises in this case centres round the power of the Subordinate Judge to make the above order. We have to consider in this connection Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. The section is as follows : "3. Power of High Court to punish contempts of subordinate courts. (1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), every High Court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction, powers and authority, in accordance with the same procedure and practice, in respect of contempts of courts subordinate to it' as it has and exercises is respect of contempt of itself. (2) No High Court shall take cognisance of contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code ................" There were similar provisions in Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926 as well. The earlier Act (the 1926 Act) was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Amulya Chandra v. Satish Chandra reported in 35 Cal. W.N. 1265 = (AIR 1932 Cal. 254). The earlier Act (the 1926 Act) was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Amulya Chandra v. Satish Chandra reported in 35 Cal. W.N. 1265 = (AIR 1932 Cal. 254). In this case it has been held that where the contempt alleged is interference with a receiver, the proper procedure is to apply directly to the High Court in its criminal revisional jurisdiction. This case is also an authority for the proposition that the Subordinate Court itself has no power to punish a person for contempt. 5. In later Division Bench judgment in the case of Dulal Chandra Bhar v. Sukumar Banerji reported in AIR 1958 Cal. 474 Chief Justice Chakravarti (sitting with Mr. Justice Lahiri) has observed : "It is also to be seen that although the learned Judge appears to have remarked frequently on violation of certain supplementary orders of the Magistrate, the Rule does not comprise any contempt of the Magistrate's Court, nor had the Magistrate made a report to this Court against the appellants, which is the proper procedure to follow under the Contempt of Courts Act in cases of contempt of subordinate Courts". The position therefore is that in cases of contempts covered by Section 3(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952 one of the procedures available is that the Judge concerned can make a report to the High Court and the High Court on receipt of that report may deal with the contempt. This procedure also finds support in Rule 15 of the Rules regulating the procedure in contempt of court matters framed by this Court read with form 2 of appendix I thereto. 6. On behalf of the opposite party No. 1 it has been contended before us that the contempt complained of comes within the purview of Clause (2) of Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. Our attention was also drawn to Sections 228, 183 and 186 of the Indian Penal Code. To our mind, none of those sections applies to the facts of the instant case. 7. In these promises, we have to set aside the impugned order. Our attention was also drawn to Sections 228, 183 and 186 of the Indian Penal Code. To our mind, none of those sections applies to the facts of the instant case. 7. In these promises, we have to set aside the impugned order. We make the Rules absolute and direct the Second Subordinate Judge at Alipore to make a report to this Court if he is satisfied that the facts placed before him necessitate such a report for the matter being dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1952. 8. There will be no order forcosts. 9. Mr. S. K. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for opposite party No. 3, the new Receiver states that his client has not filed any affidavit-in-opposition in this Rule, but he does not admit the allegations made in the petition. JANAH, J. :- 10. I agree. Rule made absolute.