- (1.)O. P. Srivastava, J. The above appeals have been filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Court's Act (in short 'act') against the orders passed by Hon'ble single Judge in contempt proceeding, holding the appellants, prima facie, guilty of contempt and framing charges against them.
(2.)THE respondent has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of said appeals under Section 19 of the Act on the ground that appeal under said section is maintainable only against an order imposing punishment for contempt and not against any other order passed in the contempt proceeding. Reliance has been placed on the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples' Co- op. Bank Ltd. and others v. Chunilal Nanda and others, AIR 2006 SC 2190.
Learned counsel for the appellants although did not dispute the contention of learned counsel for respondent that according to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Midnapore Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. 's case (supra), the appeal under Section 19 of the Act is maintainable only against an order imposing punishment for contempt but he urged that the observations in said judgment is only an obiter dicta having no binding effect because of non-consideration of judgment of larger Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baradakanta Mishra v. Mr. Justice Gatikrushna Misra. C. J. of the Orissa H. C. , 1975 Cr LJ 1. He submitted that according to the judgment in Baradakanta Mishra case (supra), an appeal lies against an order passed by Hon'ble contempt Judge in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish. He further submitted that Section 19 (1) of the Act is also clear inasmuch as it permits the filing of appeal against an order or decision passed in exercise of jurisdiction to punish for contempt. It is submitted that since the impugned order reveals that it was a decision holding the appellants, prima facie, guilty and order regarding framing of charge passed in exercise of jurisdiction to punish, the appeal under Section 19 of the Act is clearly maintainable.

Learned counsel for the appellants further cited several other judgments of various High Courts and also Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of his contention.

(3.)THE Midnapore Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. 's case (supra), is latest judgment on the controversy involved in above appeals. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for appellants also that according to the said judgment, the above appeals are not maintainable but the argument as advanced by the learned counsel for appellants is that said judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot form the precedent because of non-consideration of judgment of larger Bench in Baradakanta Mishra case (supra ). THErefore, the only point for consideration that arises in the above appeals is whether judgment in Baradakanta Mishra case (supra), was taken into consideration in Midnapore Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. 's case (supra), or it suffers from principle of sub silentio.
On going through the judgment in Midnapore Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. 's case (supra), we find that said judgment does not suffer from principle of sub-silentio as it is apparently clear from Paragraph 10 of the said judgment. Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the matter regarding maintainability of appeal under Section 19 of the Act not only considered in detail the judgment in Baradakanta Mishra's case (supra), but also other judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject.