JUDGMENT Honble Yatindra Singh, J.—The question involved here is, ‘Whether an information sent to the High Court by the subordinate Court is a reference under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (the Act). THE FACTS 2. Sri Parkash Singh is an advocate practising in the District Courts, Fatehpur. He and his daughter Ms. Shivali have written a book titled ‘Nyaya Palika Mein Apradhikaran’ (the Book). It is being distributed and sold. An incident involving Sri Prakash Singh, took place in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur (the CJM) on 27.10.2006. The CJM has sent an information on 3.11.2006 to the High Court regarding the Book and the incident, for initiating proceedings against them under the Act. It is registered as criminal contempt No. 30 of 2006. Notices on the same, were issued on 7.12.2006. 3. Sri Prakash Singh sent a legal notice dated 28.10.2006 to the CJM regarding the incident on 27.10.2009, requiring the CJM to apologise. He also filed a complaint No. 40429 of 2006 (the Complaint) under Sections 500, 503, 506 Indian Panel Code (the IPC) against the CJM on 14.11.2006. On this date, another incident took place in the Court. The CJM has sent another information on 23.11.2008 to the High Court, regarding this incident, for initiating proceeding under the Act against Sri Prakash Singh, Sri Prachitya Paurav, and Sri Gyanendra Singh. It is registered as criminal contempt No. 1 of 2007. Notices on the same, were issued on 19.2.2007. 4. The Complaint was against the CJM. The District Judge transferred it, to the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur, Court No. 10, (the ACJM) on 15.11.2006. It was dismissed on 20.11.2006. This order has been challenged by Sri Prakash Singh in criminal revision No. 577 of 2007. THE SUBMISSIONS 5. Sri Raja Singh, advocate has put up appearance on behalf of Sri Gyanendra Singh. Sri Prabhat Agrawal advocate has put up appearance on behalf of Sri Prakash Singh, Sri Prachitya Paurav, and Ms. Shivali (the other contemners). The contemners as well as their counsel are present. Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, AGA is also present. Their submissions are as follows : (i) Sri Raja Singh, counsel for Sri Gyanendra Singh submits that : An unconditional apology has been filed by Sri Gyanendra Singh; It may be accepted; and The notice against him may be discharged. Shivali (the other contemners). The contemners as well as their counsel are present. Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, AGA is also present. Their submissions are as follows : (i) Sri Raja Singh, counsel for Sri Gyanendra Singh submits that : An unconditional apology has been filed by Sri Gyanendra Singh; It may be accepted; and The notice against him may be discharged. (ii) Sri Prabhat Agarwal and the other contemners submit that: The references are defective; There is no legal reference, and They should be rejected at the preliminary stage. THE DECISION 1st Submission: Case of Sri Gyanendra Singh— With Others 6. Sri Gyanendra Singh is involved in the second incident along with two other contemners. He has filed an apology but the others have not: they have raised a preliminary objection. In these circumstances, it will be appropriate to decide the case of Sri Gyanendra Singh along with others. However, the apology will be considered at the appropriate time. Second Submission: Reference—Not Defective 7. The CJM has sent information along with annexures and the Book. These have been served upon the contemners. Their objection is that this does not amount to reference: the references are defective. The following four decisions have been cited in support of this objection: (i) Badrakanta Mishra v. Mr. Justice Gatikrushna, 1974 SCCrR 442 (the Badrakanta case). (ii) D.D. Samudra v. Vaziralli Pvt. Ltd., 2006 CrLJ 2628 (the Samudra case) (iii) Barley v. Xaivier, 1988 CrLJ 90 (the Barely case). (iv) Prabhakar v. Sadanand, 1975 CrLJ 531 (the Prabhakar case). These cases are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The Badrakanta case 8. In the Badrakanta case, the appellant was the member of the subordinate judiciary. The High Court started contempt, as well as disciplinary, proceedings against him. In the disciplinary proceedings, he was punished. He filed an application for taking contempt proceeding against the Chief Justice and the other Judges on the ground that, by awarding punishment in the disciplinary proceeding, they committed contempt of their own Court. 9. The aforesaid application was dismissed. An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court under Section 19 of the Act. The question was, ‘Was the appeal maintainable?’ The Supreme Court (paragraph 7 and 8 of the report) negated it. The Court held that in case contempt proceeding is not initiated then no appeal lies under Section 19 of the Act. 10. The aforesaid application was dismissed. An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court under Section 19 of the Act. The question was, ‘Was the appeal maintainable?’ The Supreme Court (paragraph 7 and 8 of the report) negated it. The Court held that in case contempt proceeding is not initiated then no appeal lies under Section 19 of the Act. 10. The remaining three cases are on merit of those cases. They are on the question, ‘Whether any contempt was committed or not’ rather on the question of reference being defective. The Samudra case 11. In the Samudra case, a suit was pending before the Small Causes Court (SCC). The defendant in the SCC suit had sent a letter to the High Court. This letter was shown to the Presiding Officer of the SCC trying the suit. Subsequently, the Presiding Officer made reference to the High Court on the ground that the letter amounted to the contempt of the Court. The High Court held that : The letter was merely shown to the Presiding Officer and there was no publication of the same (paragraph 18 of the report); The letter was intended to bring irregularities to the notice of the Chief Justice; and There was neither any complaint against the Presiding Officer nor could this be treated as interference in the Court proceeding (paragraph 15 and 18 of the report). The Barley case. 12. In the Barley case, a transfer application was filed before the High Court. The High Court called for the comments of the presiding Judge. After considering the comments, the transfer application was dismissed but some observations were made regarding the comments. Subsequently, an application was filed to refer the matter to the High Court for taking contempt proceedings against the Judge for his comments in reply to the transfer application. 13. The aforesaid application to initiate contempt proceeding was dismissed. This order was challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court held that : The language used by the Judge in his comments has to be seen in the light of the allegations made against him in the transfer application (paragraph No. 10 of the report). 13. The aforesaid application to initiate contempt proceeding was dismissed. This order was challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court held that : The language used by the Judge in his comments has to be seen in the light of the allegations made against him in the transfer application (paragraph No. 10 of the report). The petitioner had no right to file writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution against the order refusing to initiate contempt proceeding; and Even if the petitioner had any right, there was no necessity to issue any direction in the writ petition (paragraph 25 of the report). The Prabhakar Case 14. In the Prabhakar case, a riot took place and the accused were produced before the Magistrate. Subsequently, in a meeting, some speeches were made regarding criminal investigation. An application was filed before the subordinate Court to refer the case to the High Court on the ground that these speeches amounted to criminal contempt. The subordinate Judge forwarded the whole record alongwith a cryptic letter to the High Court. The High Court held that : A part of the speech did not relate to any pending criminal proceeding and could not constitute contempt of Court (paragraph 23 of the report). For the part of the speech that related to pending Court proceeding, the apology was accepted (paragraph 28 of the report). 15. In the present case, the question is, ‘whether the references are defective.’ This question was not directly involved in the cited cases : The first case was on the question whether an appeal was maintainable; and The remaining three cases were decided on merit. The cited cases are not applicable though, in some of them, some observations might have been made. An information to the Court is a reference. 16. The word reference has not been defined in the Act and in its absence, an information to the Court can be treated as reference. This is what has been observed by the Kerala HIgh Court in the Barley case also. Will any information to the High Court be sufficient, or there is some other requirement? 17. The information should be sent through proper channel. It should contain ingredients, prima facie making out a case for contempt. 18. In the present case, the information has been sent through the District Judge i.e. the proper channel. Will any information to the High Court be sufficient, or there is some other requirement? 17. The information should be sent through proper channel. It should contain ingredients, prima facie making out a case for contempt. 18. In the present case, the information has been sent through the District Judge i.e. the proper channel. Unlike the Prabhakar case—where information was cryptic—the information here contains The details of the incident; How it happened; and The fact that the Book has been published and is being distributed/sold. The references also contain annexures including the Book. There is no defect in the same. There is nothing to prevent them being treated as references: they cannot be rejected at the preliminary stage. 19. We have not gone into the merit of the references. This will be decided subsequently. It is at that time, the apology of Sri Gyanendra Singh will also be considered. CONCLUSIONS 20. In view of above, (i) An information sent through proper channel containing necessary ingredients prima facie making out a case for contempt is a reference. (ii) The preliminary objection is overruled. The information sent to the Court is not defective. The references will be decided on merits; (iii) Criminal Revision No. 577 of 2007 arises out of the same incident as criminal contempt No. 30 of 2006. It will be proper to decide them together. ————