IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA OCR. MISC (DB) No.18 of 2008 With OCR. MISC (DB) No.3 of 2009 THE STATE OF BIHAR Versus PROC.AGST.JAI RAM SINGH,ADV.GAYA. 10 30.06.2009 Heard learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the contemnor in both these cases. On behalf of the proposed contemnor a submission has been advanced that in the first case, that is, Or. Cr. Misc. No. 18 of 2008, the occurrence took place on 18th December, 2006 whereas notice was issued by this Court as to why the contemnor be not punished on 24th October, 2008 and in the other case the occurrence took place on 5th July, 2007 and such notice was issued by this Court on 23rd January, 2009. Hence, the contempt proceeding stands barred by limitation as prescribed by Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In support of aforesaid submission reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Om Prakash Jaiswal Vrs. D.K. Mittal; A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 1136. 2 The aforesaid judgment fully supports the stand of the learned counsel for the contemnor. In that judgment even issuance of routine notice to the proposed contemnor and other steps have been held as insufficient and the expression “initiate any proceedings for contempt” has been held to be applicable only when the Court issues notice to the person sought to be proceeded against calling upon him to show cause why he be not punished for contempt. Obviously, such a notice can be issued only by the Court competent to punish the proposed contemnor. In a criminal contempt the power to punish is either upon the High Court or upon the Supreme Court. In the present two cases notices were issued by this Court much beyond the period of one year prescribed in Section 20 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. Hence, it is found and held that the contempt proceeding in both the cases is barred by limitation. Both the proceedings are, therefore, dropped. Before parting with this order, it is deemed necessary to draw the attention of the Registrar General of this Court to this order and direct it to be vigilant in contempt 3 cases to ensure that the matters are listed for appropriate action promptly as soon as the matters are received or brought to the notice of the Court. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Anjana Prakash, J.) AAhmad