Mohini Kapoor, J.
1. The petitioner has moved this application Under Section 12 of Contempt of Courts Act against the non-petitioners who are the SHO and Head Constable of the Police Station Tehla, district Alwar for disobeying the order dated 5th October, 1988 passed by the Court in S.B Criminal Misc. Bail Application No 2581/88 This application Under Section 438 Cr. PC was allowed and it was directed that in the event of the arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail on certain conditions The petitioner obtained certified copy of this order dated 5th October, 1989 and went to the police station, Tehla on the next day i.e. 6th October, 1988 and informed the Station House Officer about the order of this Court. On 18 October, 1988 at about 9.30 p.m. the non-petitioner came at the residence of the petitioner at Phulera with other police personnel in civil dress. The petitioner showed the order of this Court but he was arrested and taken to Police Station Tehla According to the petitioner, the order of this Court was wilfully and knowingly disobeyed and the petitioner, who was prepared to furnish bail and bonds was not allowed to do so. The petitioner was taken in custody and the present contempt petition was moved by his wife Smt. Kamla with the prayer that this Station House Officer and the Head Constable be punished and that the petitioner be released from custody. The petition was presented on 25tn October, 1988 and on 15th November, 1988 it was ordered that notice, be issued to the non-petitioners to show cause so to why they should not be punished for contempt of Court.
2. The respondents denied having committed any contempt of this Court. At this stage I am not going into the details of the factual aspect of the matter, as first the legal objection raised by the respondents is to be decided.
3. A plea has been raised by the learned Counsel for the non-petitioners that the alleged contempt is in the nature of a criminal con tempi: and Under Section 18 of the Contempt of Courts Act every case of Criminal contempt is to be heard and determined by a bench of not less than two Judges.
4. In the present case the application for grant of anticipatory bail was decided by me and when the contempt application was moved this Court issued notices to the non-petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be punished for contempt of Court. The matter was not placed before a Division Bench for purposes of taking cognizance. For deciding the objection raised by the learned Counsel for the non-petitioners first of all it has to be seen whether the alleged contempt in the present case amounts to a civil contempt or criminal contempt.
5. Section 2(b)(c) of the Act define civil contempt and criminal con-item pi and the same read as follows:
(b) 'Civil Contempt' means wilful disobedience to any judgment decree, direction order, writ of other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court:
(c) 'Criminal Contempt' means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act, what so ever which
(i) scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or
(ii) Prejudice, or interfere or tends to interfere, the due course of any judicial proceedings; or
(iii) Interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tend to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner.
Sections 14 and 15 of the Act provide for taking cognizance in cases of criminal contempt and the procedure for the same has been prescribed in tap preceding Sections of the Act. Thus, Section 18 of the Act provides that every case of criminal contempt Under Section 15 of the Act shall be heard and determined by a Bench of not less than two Judges.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the on order which has been disobeyed by the non-petitioners is an order which was passed in judicial proceedings and disobedience of the same amounts to civil contempt According to him, the disobedience of the order of this Court does not amount to interference with the due course of judicial proceeding so as to say that the same amounts to criminal contempt, Another distinction pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that if Sub-rule (2) says that the provisions of Sub-rule (1) shall not be applicable in cases where the contempt consists in disobedience of a judicial order of the High Court. In such cases, the Bench concerned may pass appropriate orders and the application or report need not be laid before the Chief Justice for orders.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Dulal Chandra Bhar and ors. v. Sukumar Banerjee and Ors. : AIR1958Cal474 In this case the question arose before their Lordships of the Supreme Court was as to whether an appeal would lie against an order for contempt because under the Letters Patent provisions, appeal would lie if the case was one of civil contempt but if the contempt amounted to criminal contempt it would be beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court to consider the merits of the order of a Single Judge. In the proceeding Under Section 145 Cr. PC the learned Single Judge had caused certain orders and when the matter was sent to the Magistrate he also issued certain directions. The contempt found against the appellant was violation of the order made by the Single Judge of the High Court. Considering the distinction between criminal and civil contempt it was observed as under:
The line between civil and criminal contempt can be Broads as-, well as thin. Where the contempt consists in mere failure to comply with or carry out an order of a Court made for the benefit of a private party, it is plainly civil contempt and it has been said that when the party, in whose interest the order was made, moves the court for action to be taken in contempt against the contemner with a view to an enforcement of his right, the proceeding is only and from of execution. In such a case, there is no criminality in the disobedience and the contempt such as it is is not criminal. If how ever, the contemner adds defiance of the Court to disobedience of the order and conducts himself in a manner which amounts to obstruction to or interference with the course of justice, the contempt committed by him is of a mixed character, pertaking between him and his opponent of the nature of a civil contempt and as between him and the court or the State, of the nature of a criminal contempt, In cases of this type, no clear distinction between civil and criminal contempt can be drawn and the contempt committed cannot be broadly classed as either civil or criminal: contempt. There is, how ever, a third form of contempt which is purely criminal and which consists in conduct tending to bring the administration of justice to scorn and to interfere with the course of justice as administered by the Courts. Contempt of this class is purely criminal, because it results in an offence or a public wrong, where as contempt consisting in disobedience of an order made for the benefit of a private individual results only in a private injury. To put the matter in other words, a contempt is merely a civil wrong where there has been disobedience of an order made for the benefit of a particular party, but where it has consisted in setting the authority of the Courts at naught and has bad a tendency to invade the efficacy of the machinery maintained by the Satte for the administration of justice, it is, a public wrong and consequently criminal in nature.
I this cass, the only allegation made was that the private party, in whose favour the order was made, himself made an attempt to serve the order and was then abused. The only other complaint made was that the adverse party-did not voluntarily restore possession or return certain goods, but nothing said as to any contumaciousness to the Court, itself, nor as to any apprehension of the breach of the peace. In the circumstances, there could not be any question of any criminal contempt. There was no allegation that the other party resisted or obstructed when the petitioner wanted to take possession and there was nothing to show contumaciousness to the court itself and there was no apprehension of breach of the peace. Hence, it was held that there could not be any question of any criminal contempt. The question between the parties was purely a question of enforcement of certain rights in which no public interest was in any way involved, therefore, it was a civil contempt.
8. In The Slate v. Dasrath Jha : AIR1951Pat443 distinction between contempt that are criminal and those that are civil was considered and it was observed that criminal contempt consists in a conduct that offends the majesty of law and undermines the dignity of the Court. A civil contempt, on the other hand, is a failure to obey a Court's order issued for the benefit of the opposing party, and the principal object of a civil contempt is to secure the enforcement of the order.
9. In Vijay Pratap Singh v. Ajit Prasad and Ors. : AIR1966All305 it was observed that in a civil contempt the purpose is to force the contemner to do something for the benefit of the other party, while in criminal contempt the proceeding is by way of punishment for a wrong not so much to a party or individual but to the public at large by interfering with the normal process of law or diminishing the majesty of the Court. In this case, the grievance of the petitioner was that the other party by his act and conduct had hampered the progress of the suit and had stopped the normal process of law The contempt was held to be a criminal nature.
10. In Court on its own motion v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. 1987 (I) Crimes 62 the facts were that the Himachal Pradesh High Court had given a judgment laying down a law that under trial prisoners would not be brought in handcuff before the court. How ever, the convict was produced in the court of Sessions Judge in handcuffs in flagrant violations of the directions issued by the court. Considering distinctions between civil and criminal contempt, it was held that the contempt in this case amounted to civil 1 contempt because of the failure to obey courts order issued for the benefit of any party. It was said that the object of civil contempt is to secure the enforcement of any order which has been disobeyed wilfully Criminal contempt was distinguished as constituting on attempt that offends the majesty of law and undermine the dignity of the Court.
11. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the non-petitioner has placed reliance on Mangilalv. Harsai and Ors. 1988 Cr. LR (Raj) 162. This is the case similar to the present one. The petitioner in this case was granted anticipatory ba I by this Court and inspite of this direction he was arrested. The matter came up before Mr. Justice M B. Sharma, who had granted anticipatory bail and he ordered that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice for constitution a Division Bench for initiating contempt proceedings. Thereafter, the matter was placed by the Chief Justice before regular Division Bench, who took cognizance for committing contempt of Court and allowed the petition. In the order passed by the Hon'ble Justice MB. Sharma, and in the order passed by Hon'ble Division Bench, it has not been discussed as to whether the disobedience of an order of the Court granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner amounts to civil contempt or criminal contempt. No one had raised the controversy that the matter could by a civil contempt, hence, the question whether the contempt is civil criminal contempt has to be decided.
12. In State of Rajasthan v. M R Mitruka 1978 Cr. Raj. 353 the question which arose for consideration was as to when does initiation of proceedings for contempt take place. It was held that such initiation of proceedings for contempt can be considered by at least two judges of the High Court, who apply their judicial mind to the facts of the case and on consideration thereof, decide to take cognizance of the case and direct the issuance of notice in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the Act. In this particular case no order taking congizance had been passed at all as the Chief Justice while passing an administrative order regarding initiation of disciplinary proceedings had also directed that a show cause notice be also issued to the respondent why proceedings for contempt of Court any not be started against him. The contempt alleged in this case, was criminal contempt (lowering the authority and dignity of the Court) and as the matter had not been placed before a Division Bench for consideration and the Bench did not apply its mind and decide the intiate proceedings, it was held that no cognizance was ever taken and further action could not be justified.
13. First of all it may ke said that an alleged contempt would not become a civil contempt or a criminal contempt merely because, it arises out of civil or criminal proceedings respectively. It may also be said that the application alleging contempt are more important then the heading which is given by the petitioner in such applications. If the application is described as a criminal contempt petition, it cannot be said to be conclusive because ultimately the nature of the contempt would depend upon the act of non-petitioner. The petitioner in this case has described this contempt petition as a criminal misc. contempt petition because it arises out of the order passed in a criminal misc. bail application. This description cannot become the last word as to the nature of the contempt.
14. I will now examine the facts in order to decide whether the allegations constitute criminal contempt or civil contempt.
15. In order to appreciate the difference between civil contempt and criminal contempt, a reference be again made to the definitions as given Under Section 2 of the Act. Civil contempt means, wilful disobedience of any order of the Court which includes judgment, decree, direction etc. while criminal contempt can be committed by publication of worde written spoken etc. which has the effect of scandalising or lowering down the authority of any court or it interferes or tends to interfer with due cause of judicial proceedings or it interfers or obstructs the administration of justice. It maybe said that every disobedience of an order of the Court may indirectly amount to interference with the administration of justice but every. Disobedience of an order of the Court is not criminal contempt. A disobedience falling in the category of criminal contempt must fulfil the requirement of criminal contempt as given in Section 2(c) of the Act have been done. For a contempt to be a criminal contempt there has to be a publication of some sort. This publication can be by words, spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise. When this part is established, then it is to be seen whether it falls within the three categories mentioned in the definition viz. lowers the authority of the Court interferes with the due course of judicial proceeding or obstructs the administration of justice. The simpliciter disobedience of an order of the Court is civil contempt. Such disobedience may tend to indirectly interefere with the administration of justice, as every order of the Court can be said to be administenag justice But to be criminal contempt this interference with the administration of justice to be done in any of the manner provided Under Section 2(c) of the Act. The indirect effect of the contempt committed by a person is not to be seen at the time of deciding whether the contempt is civil contempt or criminal contempt. It is the normal consequence of the act, which can be said to be relevant. If by some stretch of imagination, the act of contempt is given a meaning which cannot be said to be the normal effect of the act or contempt then the same cannot be made use of for the purpose of deciding the nature of the contempt. As far as the petitioner in this case is concerned, he had an order in his favour that he should be released on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest and he has contended that this order was not obeyed and he was arrested. This is a case of disobedience of the direction of the Court. Cases of interference with the course of justice can be said to arise when a person threatens a Presiding Officer of a Court or makes efforts to influence a Judge or does not allow the court to proceed with the work etc. The indirect result of all disobedience can be connected with the administration of justice but all contempt will not become criminal contempt unless the basis of the same is publication by words, written, spoken etc. Where there is a disobedience of the order or direction of the Court as in the present case, the contempt is of a civil nature.
16. Coming to the merits of the case, it can be said that this Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner on 5th October, 1988- According, to the petitioner, he appeared before the Station House Officer, Police Station Tehla on 6th October, 1988 and informed about this order. The petitioner is a railway employee. On 10th October, 1988, at about 10.00 p.m. be was at his house. The Station House Officer, Police Station Tehla, Head Constable Sanwant Singh and some other police constables came to his residence at Phulera and arrested him inspite of the order of anticipatory bail in his favour. The wife of the petitioner moved this contempt petition on 25th October, 1988 accompanied with affidavits of neighbours. The petitioner himself was released from Police Station Tehla on 24th Oct., 1988, He came to Phulera and then met his advocate at Jaipur and his affidavir was filed on 26th October, 1988. He has deposed that after arresting him cm the night of 18th October 1988, he was taken to Police Station Tehla. in a Jeep of Mahesh Kumar and there then Station House Officer looked him up in a room. On 21st October, 1988. Head Constable Sanwant Singh; and other constables took him to Barmer at the house of Nandlal Carpenter. He has given the details of the trains by which he was taken. He was-released on 24th October 1988 and on reaching Phulera, he leant that his. wife had moved a contempt petition and then he also contacted his advocate. On the complaint of the petitioner to the higher authorities, in police departmental inquiry has also been commenced against the non-petitioners. It is said that a First Information Report has been registered in the Anti-Corruption Department. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he could not attend to his job in the Railways from 19th October, 1988 to 24th October, 1988 on account of the reason that he had been arrested. The reason for his absence at the job as given by his family was that he had been arrested and the Railway Authorities got it confirmed from the Police Department by letter Ex. Rule 10. It was admitted that he was taken to Police Station Tehla but at the same time it was clarified that he was officially not under arrest and therefore, he should be taken on duty. Besides the affidavit of petitioner's wife, affidavits of Surendra Kumar and Pratap Singh have been filed. They have deposed that inspite of the fact that the petitioner told that he had been granted anticipatory bail by High Court, he was arrested.
17. The learned Counsel for the non-petitioners has first of all referred to the statements of the non-petitioners and other persons in which they have denied that the petitioner was arrested and brought at the Police Station Tehla. It is contended that those affidavits of the non-petitioner rules, and other persons, could be said to be sufficient to rebut the contention of the petitioner. It is argued that the jeep driver has refused that he took the petitioner in his jeep and that there are no affidavits of persons belonging to the different places where the petitioner is alleged to have been taken, According to him, the names of the persons whose affidavits have not been filed should have been disclosed earlier.
18. A case has been registered against the non-petitioners by Anti-Corruption Department for offences Under Sections 342, 343, 344, 325 and 345 IPC and Sections 7, 13(1)(a) and (d), 13(2) and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Under Section 120B, IPC. This is in connection with the facts and circumstances of the present case. How ever, the investigation conducted in this case or in the departmental inquiry cannot be taken into consideration for findins out whether the non-petitioners can be said to be guilty of contempt of the Court or not. This would depend upon the material produced in the present position.
19. I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the affidavits produced on behalf of both the sides. It may be said that the petitioner was a suspect in a murder case and he had been granted anticipatory bail. H being railway employee, wanted to product his service but then inspite of the fact that he had been granted anticipatory bail, he was arrested from his house in Phulera. The affidavits of the neighbours, who saw the police taking him away cannot be brushed aside simply because their names were not disclosed earlier. The petitioner had no opportunity of disclosing their names because after his arrest he had been taken away and the first opportunity was availed of by filing affidavits along with the petition The petitioner would not like to invite suspension from service by making a false allegation of his own arrest. The petitioner was taken from place to place and no doubt he has not filed any affidavits of persons of those different places but it was not possible for the petitioner to contact the strangers, he met. It is the non-petitioners who have produced the First Information Report registered before the Anti-Corruption Department. In this it has been alleged that the non-petitioner No. I asked for illegal gratification for releasing the persons who had been detained at the police station.
20. When the petitioner was kept in custody then he could allege and prove this fact by his own affidavit only as he cannot find any police personnel to say something in his support. He has filed affidavits of persons in whose presence, he was arrested and taken away. This was done inspite of the order of this Court Hence, it can be said that the non-petitioners have disobeyed the order of this Court and they are guilty of contempt of Court. The non-petitioners have not tendered any apology and their case is that they have not disobeyed the order of this Court bat as it has been proved from the affidavits submitted on behalf of the petitioner, that the non-petitioners No. i and 2 have disobeyed the orders of this Court, which were a direction to release the petitioner on bail in case be is atrrested, they are guilty of contempt of Court.
21. This contempt petition is allowed, B.B. Bhardwaj, Station House Officer, Police Station Tehla District Alwar and Sanwat Singh, Head Cons-table, Police Station Tehla, District Alwar are sentenced to one month's imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-each under the Contempt of Courts Act. A copy of this order be sent to the Director Genera of Police, Government of Rajasthan.