Short Note : It is alleged that the contemner Vidya Bhushan Thakur addressed a meeting in which he made defamatory imputations against Shri Ramanand, Magistrate, First Class, Rajnandgaon. 2. Shripatsingh had moved the District and Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon an application (Ex.B-1) for taking action against Vidya Bhushan Thakur. On this application, a notice was issued to Vidya Bhushan Thakur to file his reply which was filed on 18-3-1974 wherein he denied that he had made any defamatory imputations against the Magistrate. Shri Ramanad recorded evidence of Shripatsingh and his witnesses as also of Vidya Bhushan Thakur and his witnesses. He, however, did not record any finding on the evidence of both the parties and did not himself make any reference to this Court for taking action against Vidya Bhushan Thakur. It is his successor Shri A.L. Nimonkar, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajnandgaon who moved this, Court for taking action and forwarded to this Court the application of Shripatsingh and the evidence of the witnesses recorded by Shri Ramanand. 3. After admitting the reference, the High Court issued notices to Vidya Bhushan Thakur and to the Advocate General. The Advocate General did not file any reply. The contemner in response, to the notice of this Court opposed and filed a return and denied that he had made any imputation. He stated that the proceedings were incompetent in view of the mandatory provisions of section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 4. Shri M.V. Tamaskar, Government Advocate, contended that a notice should be issued to Shripatsingh because these proceedings have arisen as a result, of his complaint (Ex.P-1). Shri K.M. Agarwal, Advocate for the contemner, opposed this contention. Held : We, are of the view that, the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are between the Court and the contemner and, therefore, notice to the complainant is not necessary. See Baradakanta Misra v. Mr. Justice Gatikishna Misra, C.J. of the Orissa H.C., AIR 1974 SC 2255 . In view of this, we did not consider it essential to notice -Shripatsingh. 5. The alleged defamatory imputations were made on 5-1-1974. The reference to the High Court was made on 15-12-1977. This Court admitted the reference on 10-3-1978. Thus, about four years have already elapsed between, the date of making the application and the taking of cognizance by this Court. 5. The alleged defamatory imputations were made on 5-1-1974. The reference to the High Court was made on 15-12-1977. This Court admitted the reference on 10-3-1978. Thus, about four years have already elapsed between, the date of making the application and the taking of cognizance by this Court. This long time will be a factor in refusing to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act.