ORDER Heard Mr. Haridwar Pandey who has appeared in person as the petitioner and learned counsel for the Vigilance Department, Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate as well as learned counsel for the State. 2. The records of the case disclose that the Contemnor wrote a letter dated 15.5.2003 to one of the Hon’ble Judges of this Court who was then hearing a Criminal writ petition bearing No. 143 of 2003 preferred by the alleged Contemnor, Sri Pandey. 3. Order dated 16.5.2003 drawn in the said writ petition no. 143/2003 records that Sri Pandey appeared in person and he admitted his signature on the letter addressed to the Hon’ble Judge and stated that he had signed that letter. The Hon’ble Judge recorded that the letter prima facie shows commission of criminal contempt. The said letter was kept on the record and Registry was directed to register it as a separate case for contempt. 4. Sri Pandey was required to file show cause as to why he be not proceeded against for committing criminal contempt of the Court. Show cause, if any, was to be filed within six weeks from 16.5.2003. 5. On the basis of aforesaid order, the Registry instituted the present original Cr. Misc. No. 05 of 2003 as a separate case and a notice was also issued to Sri Pandey. Photo copy of the show cause notice dated 6.2.2003 has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the show cause filed by Sri Pandey. 6. A perusal of the show cause shows that objection has been taken to the show cause notice on the ground that it has not been properly drafted and suffers from several lacunas and, therefore, on account of defect in notice, the proceeding is not maintainable and deserves to be dropped. 7. In course of argument, Mr. Pandey has submitted that the notice does not bear seal of the Authority issuing the notice nor insertions made in hand regarding rule returnable date have been counter signed or initialed. It was further pointed out that Section 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act (for brevity, the Act) is not applicable in respect of Criminal Contempt proceeding by the High Court or Supreme Court hence, the notice is defective in mentioning that the Contempt proceeding is under Section 15 (2) of the Act. It was further pointed out that the Cause Title given in the notice shows Mr. It was further pointed out that the Cause Title given in the notice shows Mr. Pandey himself as the petitioner whereas the correct Cause Title should have been “Suo motu contempt proceeding by the Court against Sri Pandey.” 8. Besides the aforesaid technical objections, Mr. Pandey submitted that Section 15 (3) of the Act requires that every motion or reference under this Section shall specify the contempt of which the person charged is alleged to be guilty. According to him, the notice refers only to a letter addressed to the one of the Hon’ble Judges singed by Mr. Pandey but does not specifically mention what part of the letter and in what manner amounts to contempt of the Court. 9. Lastly Mr. Pandey has submitted that the notice clearly mentions that it was only a notice as to why a proceeding for Criminal contempt be not initiated. Since issue of such notice on 4th June, 2003, this contempt matter has remained pending at the same stage for 8 years and till date no cognizance has been taken and the contempt proceeding has not been initiated as yet. On such facts, it has been submitted that now Section 20 of the Act creates a bar of limitation and the Court can not initiate any proceeding of contempt, either on its motion or otherwise because much longer period than period of one year has expired from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. 10. Learned counsel for the State and Senior Advocate for the Vigilance Department have submitted that the limitation for initiating any proceeding of contempt provided under Section 20 shall apply from the stage of Section 17 i.e. after cognizance is taken in a Contempt matter. 11. We are unable to accept the submission advanced on behalf of the State and Vigilance Department because once cognizance is taken, the proceeding for contempt gets initiated automatically, the bar of limitation is not after initiation of the proceeding but before initiation of the proceeding and law of limitation under Section 20 of the Act prohibits initiation of the proceeding itself for alleged contempt after the expiry of one year from the date of commission of contempt. Since this proceeding is now clearly barred by limitation, there is no requirement of deciding the effect of various lacunas pointed out by Mr. Since this proceeding is now clearly barred by limitation, there is no requirement of deciding the effect of various lacunas pointed out by Mr. Pandey in the notice dated 4th June, 2003 issued against him. 12. As a result, contemplated proceeding against Sri Pandey is dropped. Thus, the matter stands disposed of. 13. Before parting with the matter, we would like to caution the office or the Registry of the Court that in contempt matters, the period of limitation should be prominently pointed out to the Court and the notice issued pursuant to order of the Court should not contain any confusion which may create complications or difficulties in future as in the present case. The order dated 16th May, 2003 in Cr. W.J.C. No. 143/2003 did not mention that the notice should be under Section 15 (2) of the Act. The Court could have decided to proceed in contempt even under Constitutional power which do not have any period of limitation. Clearly, the office has acted beyond the orders and directions of this Court in stating a wrong fact in the notice that the proceeding was under the provisions of the Act. 14. Further, the notice should have been properly sealed by the Court or the Assistant Registrar who issued notice on behalf of the Court and the Cause Title should have been carefully drafted. The additions in pen in the last but one paragraph should have been supported by signature or initials. Such kind of mistakes in a contempt proceeding is bound to give technical advantage to the alleged Contemnor. 15. We direct the office/Registry to prepare guidelines in the matter and while issuing notice to the Contemnor, the office should keep in mind the requirement of Section 15 (3) of the Act if the notice is before cognizance and even if notice is issued under Section 17 after cognizance, the specific Acts amounting to contempt should be indicated or copy of the contemptuous publication should be enclosed with the notice otherwise alleged Contemnor can always raise a technical objection that he had no proper notice. This order be brought to the notice of Registrar General for doing the needful. 16. This order be brought to the notice of Registrar General for doing the needful. 16. Although we have dropped the contempt proceeding on account of limitation and further on account of pendency for about eight years when according to materials on record, the alleged Contemnor is now aged about 84 years, however, we warn the alleged Contemnor, Mr. Pandey to for-bear from writing any kind of scurrilous materials against any Judge or Lawyer of this Court in future.