Heard Sri Sudhakar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
Contempt is alleged of the order dated 3.12.2001 passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5189 of 2001 (Lallan Bhar Vs. State of U.P.). The Stamp Reporter has reported that this contempt petition is beyond time by 8 years and 138 days.
Learned counsel has submitted that the Court required the District and Sessions Judge, Ballia to decide the Session Trial No. 82 of 1999 expeditiously preferably within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order before him. According to learned counsel a certified copy of the order was filed in the Session Trial No. 82 of 1999 on 16.12.2001, which fact is also borne out from the order-sheet, which has been filed as Annexure alongwith the affidavit filed in support of this contempt petition. Learned counsel states that the cause of action for bringing this contempt petition would arise each and every day till the order of the High Court is complied with and therefore, there is no bar of this contempt petition on the ground of limitation as reported by the Stamp Reporter.
Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record, it is quite true that the High Court directed that the Session Trial No. 82 of 1999 should be decided within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. It is also a fact that certified copy of the order was brought on record of the Session Trial No. 82 of 1999, which is borne out from the order-sheet. However, insofar as the bar of limitation is concerned, the limitation for bringing this contempt petition would start on expiry of 6 months from the date a certified copy of the order was filed before the Court below. Certified copy of the order was brought on record of the court below on 16.12.2001 and upon expiry of six month thereafter, if the Sessions Trial was not decided, the limitation for bring this contempt petition would start.
In view of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the limitation is of one year and therefore on expiry of the period of 6 months in the year 2002, the time would start running. The cause of action arose on expiry of the period of six months. When on such expiry of the period the Sessions Trial was not concluded it gave rise to a cause to the applicant of alleging disobedience. He has slept over his right to bring a contempt petition within the period of limitation and has woken up after nearly ten years. Although no motives of convenience can be attributed to him at this stage but the statutory provision of limitation bars this proceeding. In these circumstances, the submission of a continuing cause of action cannot be accepted.
Consequently, the report of the Stamp Reporter is affirmed and the submission of learned counsel for the applicant is not accepted. Moreover, under the proviso of Rule 5 Chapter XXXV-E of the Allahabad High Court Rule, 1952, notice cannot be issued in this contempt petition in view of the bar contained therein.
The contempt petition is beyond time and it is accordingly, dismissed for that reason.
No order is passed as to costs.
Order Date :- 3.11.2011 Lbm/-