JUDGEMENT 1. Heard the parties. 2. Learned Counsel for the State of Bihar has taken us through the materials available on record to show that on 22.5.2007 a bail petition was filed on behalf of Respondents No. 2 and 3 who were accused persons in Complaint Case No. 61/2007 pending in the Court of Shri S.K. Pandey, Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Muzaffarpur. According to the materials on record including show cause of Respondent No. 1 who is an Advocate and of Respondents No. 2 and 3, it is clear that there are two versions as to what happened in that date. According to the report submitted by the District Judge, Muzaffarpur aftere enquiry the two accused Respondents No. 2 and 3 had surrendered in Court of Shri S.K.Pandey on that date. A bail petition had been filed which had been rejected after arguments as per oral orders, but after sometime the bail petition was taken away from the Magistrate on some pretext and two accused persons also absconded from the Court on the asking of the Respondent No. 1, their Advocate. 3. There is a counter version according to which allegedly there was demand of Rs. 10,000/- by the concerned Magistrate in his Chambers from the Respondent No. 1 and in that account the bail petition was not moved but was taken back from the Bench Clerk and no judicial proceeding took place in respect of that bail application. 4. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur has examined many witnesses and given his own prima facie opinion in the matter. But we were required to form our own opinion as to which version is correct. However, a technical plea has been raised on behalf of respondents that the contempt proceeding is barred by limitation as provided in Section; 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 5. Learned Counsel for the State of Bihar tried to persuade us to hold that the words "no Court" occurring in Section 20 of the Act will not include High Court because it has power to punish for its own contempt under constitutional provision, i.e., Article 215 of the Constitution of India. We are not persuaded by that submission because the constitutional power available to this Court is in relation to a contempt of itself and not a contempt of the Subordinate Courts. 6. We are not persuaded by that submission because the constitutional power available to this Court is in relation to a contempt of itself and not a contempt of the Subordinate Courts. 6. In the present case, the contempt as alleged was committed on 22.5.2007 and the initiation of the contempt proceeding was as per order of this Court passed on the first date of this proceeding, that is, 24.6.2009. No doubt, in the meantime orders had been passed in some other criminal cases directing the District and Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur to hold enquiry and submit report but those events cannot stop running of the period of limitation. The limitation is upon initiation of the contempt proceeding which can be said to have been initiated only when this Court formed an opinion that a prima facie case for initiating the proceedings for contempt is made out. That was definitely beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. 7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this proceeding is held to be barred by limitation and is therefore dropped against all the respondents.