JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application under section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, by Shri D.C. Hajela, the then District and Sessions Judge, Alwar, for committing certain members of the Bar Association, Alwar, for contempt of court. 2. The applicant alleges that the respondents were guilty of contempt of court in that they were guilty of contemptuous conduct towards him and that they obstructed the proceedings of the court on July 1, 1976, when lie was hearing a criminal appeal. 2. The applicant alleges that the respondents were guilty of contempt of court in that they were guilty of contemptuous conduct towards him and that they obstructed the proceedings of the court on July 1, 1976, when lie was hearing a criminal appeal. The substance of the accusation made by hint is in these terms : 1- ;g fd rkjh[k 1 tqykbZ lu~ 1976 dks djhc lqcg 9 cts tcfd esa cgsfl;r fMLV~d ,UM lS'kUl tt] vyoj viuh vnkyr esa T;wfMf'k;y odZ dj jgk FkkA vkSj jke nsok cuke ljdkj fdzehuy vihy ds ,Mfe'ku dh LVst ij lquokbZ gks jgh Fkh rHkh Jh0 izHkqflag odhy izslhMsUV ckj ,slksfl,'ku vyoj Jh oh0Mh0nqcs okbZl izlhMsUV] ckj ,lksfl,s'ku vyoj] Jh izHkkr dqekj tSu lfpo] Jh dSyk'k ukFk HkkxZo odhy] Jh uUn fd'kksj 'kekZ odhy Jh d`ik n;ky ekFkqj odhy] Jh lrh'k dqekj 'kekZ odhy] Jh ekrknhu xxZ odhy] Jh t;fd'ku xqIrk odhy] Jh NksVw flag odhy] Jh dSyk'k ukjk;.k xqIrk odhy] Jh tS0ds0 'kekZ odhy tks okLro esa Jh uoy fd'kksj 'kekZ Fks vkSj ftUgksusa igys viuk uke tS0ds0 'kekZ gksuk crk;k Fkk Jh enu eksgu Hkxr odhy Jh vehpUn xqIrk odhy] Jh vkj0ds0 HkkxZo odhy rFkk muds vU; lkFkh odhy ftUgsa esa 'kDy o lwjr ls igpku ldrk gwWa ,oa vU; 5 ;k 10 kgjh xqUM+ksa dks ysdj vnkyr esa lkekU; mn~ns'; ls fdzehuy dUVsiV vFkkrZ rksfgus vnkyr djus dh lkekU; vk'k; ls xqLls ls Hkjs gq,s nkf[ky gq,s vkSj vkrs gh Jh izHkqflag odhy us bl ckr dh dqps"Vk dh fd Jh eksgEen bLekbZy [kkWa odhy tks fd vU; eqdneksa ds flyflysa esa ml le; vnkyr es igys ls mifLFkr Fks] dks Ms+x djus dh dksf'k'k bl lkekU; mn~ns'; ls dh fd oks Hkh vFkkZr Jh eksgEen bZLekbZy [kkWa vnkyr dk ck;dkV cfg"dkj djsa] ;gh ugh CkfYd bu lHkh mijksDr dfFkr odhyksa us ,sls vrstukRed] vfiz;] dUVSEipw;l] MsjhxsVjh] bulyfVax] gwfeysafVx] FkszVfux] oyxj ,oa vf'k"V 'kCnksa dk iz;ksx fd;kA tSls %& d`ik n;ky us dgk fd ;g D;k cRrehth gS Jh lrh'k dqekj 'kekZ us dgk bZfM;V vkSj cnek'k ;g Hkh dgk Fkk fd cktk ys tkdj ogkWa ctok;k fQj ijluy D;k gksrh gSA bUgksusa ;g Hkh dgk Fkk fd ;g VsifjdkMZj muds ctkvksa tks crk,sxs ykssaMs ckthA Jh ekrknhu odhy us dgk fd ukVd gks jgk gS] Jh d`ik n;ky ekFkqj odhy us ;g Hkh dgk Fkk fd D;k rek'k cuk j[kk gS\ Jh nqcs us dgk fd 'kjkc ihdj cdrk gSA Jh ekrknhu xxZ odhy us ;g Hkh dgk Fkk fd rw fudy ckgj Jh d`ik n;ky ekFkqj us ;g Hkh Li"V 'kCnksa esa dgk FkkA You Want to commercialize vocies, you may sell it, your wife may sell it, your son may sell it. Jh dsyk'k ukFk HkkxZo] Jh NksVwflag] Jh uUn fd'kksj 'kekZ o Jh uoy fd'kksj 'kekZ] ftUgksaus vnkyr ds dejs esa Mk;l ls dkQh nwjh ij [kMs+ gksdj vius dks igys ts0ds0 'kekZ odhy gksuk crk;k Fkk Jh dSyk'k ukjk;.k odhy vkfn us dgk cUn dj ns Vsi] dke ugh djus nsxs vkSj mijksDr dfFkr O;fDr dUVhujl [kwc tksj tksj ls gYyk xqYyk] 'kksj xqy dkQh nsj rd djrs jgs] 'kkmV djrs jgs] ph[krs fpYykrs jgs] rFkk vius gkFk gok esa mBkrs jgs] rFkk dksV mNkyrs jgs vkSj ;g lHkk cdqyk;k tks vnkyr dks LdUMykbZt MykbZt djus dk ck;dkV djus o mldks buQksjl djus vk;s Fks] gkWa gWaw Hkh] djrs jgs ftlls lkjk vnkyr dk;Z Bii gks x;k] ;n~;fi eSusa dksVZ ikSlMhx fMlVZo vFkok vksolVdVZ uk djus dh fjdosLV dbZ ckj dh Fkh] fQj Hkh ;s uk ekusA >xM+s dh fLFkfr ns[k dj ch0,e0 o ,l0ih0 vycj dks Qksu }kjk cqyok;k x;k tks vk x;sA To say the least, this discloses a most unsatisfactory state of affairs and does hardly give any credit to Shri D.C. Hajela to the manner in which he was functioning as a District Judge, Alwar. 3. This Court, by its order dated August 12, 1976, issued a show cause notice to four of the respondents viz., Shri Kripa Dayal Mathur, Shri Satish Kumar Sharma, Shri V.D Dube, and Shri Matadeen Garg, Advocates of Alwar, i e. the respondent Nos. 3, 4, 12 and 14 to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be taken against them. These respondents have now appeared and shown cause and their case is that they have committed no contempt of court. 4. At the hearing, Shri M.B.L. Bhargava, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3, 4, 12 and 14 to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be taken against them. These respondents have now appeared and shown cause and their case is that they have committed no contempt of court. 4. At the hearing, Shri M.B.L. Bhargava, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3, 4, 12 and 14 has raised certain preliminary objections, namely, - (1) The alleged acts complained of, alleged to have been committed by the respondents, constitute in offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code, and therefore, proviso to section 10 of the Contempt of Courts At, 1971, operates as a bar to the entertainment of proceeding, under section 15 of the Act; (2) The application filed by Shri Hajela for drawing up proceedings for contempt, is, in substance, nor a reference under section 15 (2) of the Act but an application under section 15 (1) of the the Act, That being so, the application is not maintainable as is has not been filed with the consent in writing of the Advocate General, as required by section 15(l) (b) of the Act; (3) The notice issued by this Court on August 12, 1976, was invalid because it does not specify the substance of the charge No action can now be initiated because of the bar of limitation contained in section 20 of the Act, i.e , after the lapse of one year. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court In Re : Ram Pratap Sharma and others and In Re : Daya Nand and others [(1977) 1 Supreme Court Cases 150 in support of the contention that the notice must clearly mention the particular act complained of, constituting the contempt of court; (4) The proceedings are now barred under section 20 of the Act inasmuch as the period of one year provided therefor, has elapsed. It is said that the court's order dated August 12, 1976 was for the issue of show cause notice and nothing more, requiring the respondents to show cause why contempt proceedings be not taken against them In fact no competent proceedings were ever initiated. The notice issued under rule 124 of the High Court Rules, dated August 19, 1976 requiring them to show cause why they should not he punished for contempt of court, was not in conformity with the Court's order. The notice issued under rule 124 of the High Court Rules, dated August 19, 1976 requiring them to show cause why they should not he punished for contempt of court, was not in conformity with the Court's order. Now that the period specified under section 20 of the Act has elapsed, the proceedings cannot now be initiated. (5) There was no legal material on the basis of which the Court, by its order dated August 12, 1976, could have issued the notice in question. 5. G.G. Sharma, learned Additional Government Advocate, with his usual fairness, frankly conceded that the nature of the accusation made by Shri Hajela extracted above, constitute an offence punishable under section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. He therefore accepts that the proceedings were not maintainable in view of the proviso to section 10 of the Act, which reads as under: "Provided that no High Court shall take cognizance of a 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." We have no doubt in our mind that the matter is squarely covered by the proviso. It clearly provides that no High Court shall take cognizance of a 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 This contention is supported by the decision of this Court in S.B Criminal Misc Application No. 179 of 1964, State v. Nand Kishore decided on March 6, 1965 . This was a matter which arose out of a reference made by Shri Hajela for taking action for contempt of court against the respondent No.5, Nand Kishore Sharma. In answer to the show cause notice, an objection was raised by Shri Nand Kishore that the court could not take cognizance of the matter as the contempt alleged to have been committed by him, was punisahale as an offence under section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Bhandari, J. delivering the judgment of the Division Bench, gave the reason for this view stating: "......... 6. Bhandari, J. delivering the judgment of the Division Bench, gave the reason for this view stating: "......... the Presiding Officer of a subordinate court is himself authorised to take action against a person committing contempt when the case falls under section 228 IPC and by taking action under the Penal Code the subordinate court could vindicate its dignity without any assistance from the High Court." That precisely is so in the present case. 7. The substance of the charge is that the respondents were guilty of criminal contempt by having uttered the words which tend to bring into contempt the authority of the Court, besides interfering with or obstructing the proceedings of the Court. The last ant complained of clearly falls within the purview of section 228 of the Indian Penal Code. The application is, there fore, not maintainable. 8. In that view, it is not necessary for us to go into the other objections raised. 9. In the result, the application filed by Shri D.C. Hajela under section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, is dismissed. The proceedings against respondent Nos. 2, 3, 12 and 14 are dropped and the notices issued to them are hereby discharged.Appeal dismissed. *******