Judgment:
ORDER
D.G.R. Patnaik, J.
1. The petitioner has invoked the powers of this Court for initiating contempt proceedings under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court's Act against the respondents 2 to 4 on the ground that the respondents 2 to 4 had willfully disobeyed and disregarded the order/direction of this Court dated 11.10.2007 passed in A.B.A. No. 1630 of 2007.
2. Facts of the case, stated briefly, is that the petitioner had filed an application vide A.B.A. No. 1630 of 2007 praying for anticipatory bail. By order dated 11.10.2007, pending hearing of the bail application, a Bench of this Court while calling for the case diary of the case under reference, passed interim order that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that in spite of the above order of this Court restraining the respondents to take any coercive steps against the petitioner, respondent No. 3 being the officer-in-charge of Sunder Pahari Police Station, within the District of Godda, had arrested the petitioner in connection with the case under reference in the anticipatory bail application. The petitioner was not released from arrest in spite of fact that he informed the respondent No. 3 about the interim protection granted by the High Court by the aforesaid order passed in the anticipatory bail application and had also produced a letter of his lawyer containing the substance of the order as passed by the High Court. Instead, the respondent No. 3 forwarded the petitioner for his judicial remand to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda. The petitioner informed the Presiding Officer of the Court namely, the respondent No. 4 herein about the interim protection granted by the order of this Court, but in spite of such information, the respondent No. 4 issued a warrant for the judicial remand and custody of the petitioner and pursuant to which, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody. On the aforesaid ground, petitioner has claimed that the respondents have willfully disobeyed and disregarded the order/direction passed by this Court and they are therefore liable to be prosecuted for contempt of Court.
4. By order dated 6.11.2007 passed in the present case, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda (Respondent No. 4) was called upon to report as to under what circumstances was the petitioner remanded to jail custody in spite of the order dated 11.10.2007 passed in A.B.A. No. 6.11.2007. A similar direction was issued to the respondent No. 3 through counsel for the State directing him to file show-cause on the allegation made by the petitioner. Show-cause replies both of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda (respondent No. 4) and Officer-in-charge, Sunder Pahari Police Station, District Godda were duly received.
5. In his show-cause reply, respondent No. 4 has raised preliminary objection on the ground that since he is a Judicial officer, no contempt proceeding could be initiated against him without prior consent of the Advocate General, under the provisions of Contempt of Court's Act. In reply, petitioner had submitted that the consent of the Advocate General was obtained orally, though not in writing and since notwithstanding any such fact, cognizance in the case has already been taken by this Court's order issuing notices to the both respondents. 3 and 4, it has to be deemed that the defect has been ignored. The issue involved on the basis of this preliminary objection was kept open for consideration along with the show-cause replies of the respondents 3 and 4.
6. In his show-cause reply, respondent No. 3 at the outset tendered his unqualified and unconditional apology for any act of omission or commission on his part, which may have caused inconvenience to the Court. It is explained by him that he has not willfully violated and disobeyed the order passed by this Court. In his capacity of being the investigating officer of the case in which the petitioner has been cited as an accused for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 472 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, on receiving information about the whereabouts of the petitioner, he had apprehended the petitioner and since offences were cognizable and non-bailable, he had put the petitioner under arrest on 18.10.2007. At the time of his arrest, the petitioner did not produce any copy of the order passed by this Court, nor did he produce any certificate granted by the Advocate indicating the substance of the order of Interim protection. Though, admitting that at the time of his arrest, petitioner had stated that he was granted bail by the Hon'ble High Court, but no such order of bail was produced by the petitioner, nor did he produce any certificate issued by his Advocate that he was granted bail or any order of interim protection. He has denied the petitioner's claim that he had telephonically talked with the petitioner's lawyer. Under such circumstances, and in absence of any order of the Court produced before him, forwarded the accused/petitioner under arrest to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Godda who after considering the materials on record, had remanded the petitioner to judicial custody on 19.10.2007. It is further explained that even on his production before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner did not produce any copy of any order passed by the High Court or any certificate granted by any Advocate confirming the fact that any order In his favour was passed by the High Court. It is claimed that in the light of the above facts and circumstances, he had no option but to use his right to arrest the accused/petitioner in connection with the case registered at the police station against him and to forward the accused under arrest to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for necessary orders and as such, he has not willfully and deliberately violated any order passed by this Court, nor has he committed contempt of the Hon'ble Court's order.
7. In show-cause reply, the respondent No. 4 has explained that on 19.10.2007 the petitioner was produced at his residence under arrest by the police in connection with Sunder Pahari P.S. Case No. 29 of 2007 which was registered for certain non-bailable offences. At the time of production, he followed the procedure prescribed by law inquiring from the petitioner as to whether he had any complaint to make against the police officer who had brought him under arrest and also, as to whether he wants to make any statement. At that time, the petitioner did not inform him about any order passed by the High Court in his favour, nor did he produce any certificate issued by his counsel. In absence of any order of the High Court, or any certificate of the petitioner's counsel placed before him, he had no option but to forward the accused/petitioner to the judicial remand on the basis of the allegation against the petitioner and materials available on record. He has denied the petitioner's claim that lawyer's certificate was filed in the Court but the same was not accepted and has explained that if any petition or document accompanied by any petition is filed, the same is accepted by the office in a routine manner and placed before the Presiding Officer before the Court for consideration. The petitioner has not stated as to on what date did he file any petition or certificate of his lawyer, nor is there any observation in the judicial record of the office that any such petition, as claimed by the petitioner, was filed by him in the proceeding of the said case.
8. In his rejoinder to the show-cause reply, the petitioner has reiterated that he had Informed both the police officer as well as to the Chief Judicial Magistrate about the interim order passed in his favour by the High Court and has claimed that neither of this officer has considered and acknowledged the information given by him.
9. It is apparent from the show-cause reply filed by the respondents 3 and 4 that at the time of his arrest and later at the time of his production before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner did not produce a copy of the order passed by this Court by which, he was extended interim protection. Though, petitioner claims that he has produced and filed the certificate Issued by his lawyer, but the respondents 3 and 4 have categorically denied the claim stating that no such certificate was produced before them by the petitioner and that, the judicial record of the case does not Indicate that the petitioner had filed any such petition. It also appears that the day on which the petitioner was arrested and the day on which he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, were holidays.
10. The petitioner's claim is that even otherwise, his oral communication ought to have been acknowledged by both the respondents 3 and 4 and before continuing with the arrest and detention of the petitioner, they ought to have confirmed from the High Court as to whether the petitioner's oral statement that he was granted interim protection by the High Court, was correct.
It is apparent that the respondents 3 and 4 did not rely upon the oral statement of the petitioner in absence of any written document produced before them confirming that interim protection was granted in favour of the petitioner.
11. The question therefore would be, whether the interim order of protection, as passed in favour of the petitioner, can be said to be effectively communicated to the respondents 3 and 4. and whether they were bound to accept the oral statement made by the petitioner? Though, petitioner has claimed that he had produced the certificate issued by his counsel confirming the fact that interim order in his favour was passed by the High Court, but such claim having been denied by both the answering respondents, and in absence of any other supporting material to confirm the statements of the petitioner except the presumption that In all probability, he must have produced the lawyer's certificate, the benefit has to be extended to both the answering respondents and it has to be deemed that the prder of this Court was not effectively communicated to them in order to bind them. Facts and circumstances do not Indicate that the answering respondents had willfully and deliberately disobeyed the orders of this Court.
12. Under such circumstances, the show-cause replies as filed by the respondents 3 and 4 along with their respective unqualified and unconditional apology tendered before this Court, are hereby accepted and the present proceeding is dropped. However, both the answering respondents are cautioned that that should be more careful and prudent in such situations and even on the basis of oral communication by any person brought before them, In respect of any order passed by the High Court, they must endeavour with all fairness and prudence to confirm the oral statement and act accordingly and should ensure that the orders of the High Court are diligently obeyed and complied with.