D. P. S. CHAUHAN, J. ( 1 ) IN Sessions Trial No. 200/93 following 16 persons were being tried for committing offences under Sections 302, 148, 323, 447 of the Indian Penal Code and the judgment was as delivered on 12-12-1995. 1. Ram Vishal S/o. Chhedi Lal. 2. Ram Kishore S/o. Chhedi Lal. 3. Chunnu S/o. Chandoo. 4. Sarju S/o. Chhote. 5. Raja Bhaiya S/o. Ram Kishore. 6. Chunvad S/o. Bhagwat. 7. Chandu S/o. Swami Deen. 8. Halke S/o. Swami Deen. 9. Ram Prakash S/o. Ram Mahesh. 10. Badkoo S/o. Kandi. 11. Jagdish S/o. Bhagwat. 12. Ram Milan S/o. Chhote Lal. 13. Rajesh S/o. Sarju. 14. Udari S/o. Bhagwat. 15. Badri S/o. Swami Deen. 16. Rajwa S/o. Chandu Kurmi. On the date of delivery of the judgment, the judgment was delivered at the fag end of the day as the Court remained busy throughout in other business of the Court. At the time of delivery of judgment all the accused persons were found guilty for committing offences under Section 302, 148, 149, 323 and 447, I. P. C. ( 2 ) AFTER hearing the judgment accused Ram Vishal used filthy language for the Court which led to make the present reference by Shri P. N. Parashar, District and Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, which was registered in this Court as Contempt Reference No. 1/96 under Sub-Section (2) of Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for brevity herein after referred to as 'the Act' ). ( 3 ) THIS Court on receiving the said reference passed an order on 12-1-1996 issuing notice to accused Ram Vishal to show cause as to why action under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, may not be taken against him. On 12-1-1996 accused Ram Vishal was confined in Central Jail, Rewa, and therefore, notice was directed to be sent to the Superintendent of Jail for his production before this Court on 9th April, 1996. As no production warrant was issued, the accused could not be produced on the date fixed by this Court. This Court on 25-6-1996 passed an order for issuance of the production warrant to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Rewa for the production of accused Ram Vishal before this Court on 15th July, 1996. On 15-7-1996 the accused was produced before this Court in person, who prayed for sometime for filing reply. This Court on 25-6-1996 passed an order for issuance of the production warrant to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Rewa for the production of accused Ram Vishal before this Court on 15th July, 1996. On 15-7-1996 the accused was produced before this Court in person, who prayed for sometime for filing reply. The accused was permitted to prepare his defence and was required before this Court on 22-7-1996. ( 4 ) ON 22-7-1996 the accused was present before this Court and the Court passed the following order :-"22-7-1996. CONTEMNOR Ram Vishal is present in this Court. His presence may be noted. He prays that he wants to engage a lawyer for defending himself and filing reply but he would choose his lawyer in consultation with the Superintendent, Central Jail, Jabalpur. He is allowed three weeks' time for filing reply. Reply may be filed in the Registry. Copy of the reply may be served on the learned State counsel. Registry will fix a date in the case after 3 weeks and order of appearance of the Contemnor before this Court would be passed, if necessary, when the case is posted. Till further orders of this Court, the Contemnor may be detained in Central Jail, Jabalpur. Certified copy be supplied as per rules. "the case was posted, on 9-9-1996 and since there was no report as to whether the contemnor has filed any reply to the contempt petition and has he engaged any lawyer for the defence, the case was ordered to be posted on 10th September, 1996. The case is posted today along with the report. The report is that accused has not filed any reply and has not engaged any lawyer. ( 5 ) IT is not a case where the accused needs to be Summoned again. Sufficient notice was given to him and sufficient opportunity was provided to him as is evident from the order-sheets of this Court dated 15-7-1996 and 22-7-1996. In the circumstances we proceed to decide the reference. ( 6 ) HEARD the learned State counsel, Shri Dilip Naik. ( 7 ) LEARNED State Counsel submitted that the present reference has come before this Court from Shri P. N. Parashar, District and Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur. Though in S. T. No. 200/93there were 16 accused persons, the allegation regarding commission of Contempt of Court is against accused Ram Vishal. ( 6 ) HEARD the learned State counsel, Shri Dilip Naik. ( 7 ) LEARNED State Counsel submitted that the present reference has come before this Court from Shri P. N. Parashar, District and Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur. Though in S. T. No. 200/93there were 16 accused persons, the allegation regarding commission of Contempt of Court is against accused Ram Vishal. ( 8 ) THE Judge has made the reference wherein the following facts have been stated :- (a) That 16 accused person were facing trial (S. T. No. 200/93) in his Court for commission of the offences under Sections 302, 148, 323 and 447, I. P. C. and the judgment was to be delivered on 12-12-1995. On the date of delivery of the judgment the Court remained busy throughout in recording the evidence in other criminal cases, hence the judgment in S. T. No. 200/93 could be pronounced at the fag end of the day in the presence of all the accused and the counsel. Apart from them several advocates and other interested persons were also present in side and out side of the Court. The judgment was delivered regarding finding of guilt under Section 302, 148, 149, 323 and 447, I. P. C. as against all the accused persons. (b) That after hearing the judgment, accused Ram Vishal addressed the Court in loud tone uttering filthy abuses making contemptuous statement, scandalizing the Court deliberately using insulting and provoking language to over awe the Court with threatening of dire consequences. It is also stated that all the accused persons also shared and repeatedly acted in the same fashion. There is a quotation in the reference and the same is to the following effect : (c) That Judge thereafter has mentioned that I listened to the question of sentence all of them were sentenced for life imprisonment along with other terms of imprisonment. (d) The Judge has stated that the above contemptuous act was intentional and voluntary to scandalize and lower down the prestige of the Court in the eyes of public. It amounted to an offence of criminal contempt as envisaged under Section 2 (c) of the said Act. (d) The Judge has stated that the above contemptuous act was intentional and voluntary to scandalize and lower down the prestige of the Court in the eyes of public. It amounted to an offence of criminal contempt as envisaged under Section 2 (c) of the said Act. ( 9 ) THE Contempt was registered only against accused Ram Vishal and the notice was issued to him by this Court as the Court was of the view that the allegations are not very specific that all the other accused persons had taken part in the act of committing contempt of the Court. ( 10 ) FROM the facts, as stated above one thing is apparent that the accused person were heard on the question of sentence after utterance in question, which amounted to Contempt of Courts, was made. ( 11 ) ORDER-SHEET dated 12-12-1995 is also on the record which mentioned to the following effect : ( 12 ) IN the reference there is no mention that the aforesaid language was used by the contemner after the case was closed, judgment was sealed and signed and the Court became functus officio. ( 13 ) SO far as the conduct of the accused is concerned, it is contemptuous and requires to be viewed with all seriousness. ( 14 ) SECTION 10 of the Act is extracted as below :-"10. Power of High Court to punish contempts subordinate Courts - 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 in respect of contempts of itself :the proviso is relevant which says 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 anoffence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. Because of this proviso, the Court has to revert back to the provisions contained in Indian Penal Code and the same is under Section 226, which is as extracted below :"228, Whoever, intentionally offers any insult, or causes any interruption to any public servant, while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceedings shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months;or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. "section 228, I. P. C. uses the words "insult, or causes any interruption to any public servant while such public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding. " ( 15 ) THE question for consideration is whether what has been uttered by the contemner is insult to the Officer or it has scandalized the Court. ( 16 ) LEARNED State counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of M. P. v. Revashankar, AIR 1959 SC 102 : 1959 Cri LJ 251) Para 7. The facts of that case were different. In that case two fold serious aspersions were made against the Magistrate. One aspersion was that the Magistrate had joined in a conspiracy to implicate the accused in a false case of theft and the other aspersion was that the Magistrate had taken a bribe of Rs. 500/ -. In the decision relied on earlier case of the Supreme Court i. e. Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy v. State of Madras, AIR 1952 SC 149 : (1952 Cri LJ 832) was considered. The Court observed : "the true test is; is the act complained of an offence under Section 228, Indian Penal Code, or is it something more than that ? If in its true nature and effect the act complained of is really "scandalising the Court" rather than a mere insult, then it is clear that on the ratio of our decision in Ramkrishna Reddy's case (supra) the jurisdiction of the High Court is not ousted by reason of the provision in Section 3 (2) of the Act. " This ratio is founded on distinction as to whether the utterances amount to scandalising the Court or offering any insult to the Court. " This ratio is founded on distinction as to whether the utterances amount to scandalising the Court or offering any insult to the Court. ( 17 ) THE words used by the contemner are clearly offering of the insult to the Court and the Court has the power to sentence the accused persons for six months imprisonment, or with fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000/-, or with both. Not only this, such a discretion could have also prompted the subordinate Judge in the imposition of the penalty or Judge could have made sentences non-concurrent. ( 18 ) THE offence of Contempt was committed at the stage when the matter was before the Court and the same was covered by provisions of Section 228, I. P. C. In the circumstances were (sic) (we) consider it expedient to send back the reference to the Court concerned for taking action under Section 229, I. P. C. against the Contemner as when he committed the contempt, the Court had the full jurisdiction and subsequent closure of the case would not take away the jurisdiction of the Court and it is ordered accordingly. ( 19 ) THE accused-Contemner lodged in Central Jail, Jabalpur shall be sent back to Chhatarpur Jail from where he was brought here under the orders of this Court and lodged at Central Jail, Jabalpur. Copy of the order shall also be sent to the concerned Court. Order accordingly. .