Contempt of Courts Act,1971

Act No : 70

---

Section : Procedure after cognizance.

17. Procedure after cognizance. (1) Notice of every proceeding under section 15 shall be served personally on the person charged, unless the court for reasons to be recorded directs otherwise. (2) The notice shall be accompanied, (a) in the case of proceedings commenced on a motion, by a copy of the motion as also copies of the affidavits, if any, on which such motion is founded ; and (b) in the case of proceedings commenced on a reference by a subordinate court, by a copy of the reference. (3) The court may, if it is satisfied, that i person charged under section 15 is likely to abscond or keep out of the way to avoid service of the notice, order the attchment of his property of such value or amount as it may deem reasonable. (4) Every attachment under sub-section (3) shall be effected in the manner provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (5 of 1908) for the attachment 5 of property in execution of a decree for payment of money, and if, after such attachment, the person charged appears and shows to the satisfaction of the court that he did not abscond or keep out of the way to avoid service of the notice, the court shall order the release of his property from attachment upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it may think fit. (5) Any person charged with contempt under section 15 may file an affidavit in support of his defence, and the court may determine the matter of the charge either on the affidavits filed or after taking such further evidence as may be necessary, and pass such order as the justice of the case requires.

---

Read All Comments

Comments

Prakash Yedhula wrote on 03 May 2009

The contempt proceedings are not criminal proceeding but are proceedings of a summary nature and the courts evolve their own procedure to dispose of such proceedings and accordingly extend the normal rules of procedure in contempt cases so as to act fairly and judiciously.—Vidaya Charan Shukla v. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association 1991 Cr LJ 2722

Prakash Yedhula wrote on 03 May 2009

The contemner is not entitled to adduce evidence in jurisdiction of his conduct.—V.M. Kanade v. Mahav Gadkari 1990 Cr LJ 190

Prakash Yedhula wrote on 03 May 2009

It is not open to any contemner to take the plea that truth of the allegation is a justification.—Advocate General v. Rachapudi Subba Rao 1991 Cr LJ 613

Quick Links

• Recent Comments
• Recent Citations
• Bare Acts Alphabetically