http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: ARUN KSHETRAPAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT, JABALPUR & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/08/1976

BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BENCH: RAY, A.N. (CJ) BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH SINGH, JASWANT

CITATION:  1976 AIR 1967            1977 SCR  (1)  98  1976 SCC  (3) 690

ACT:            Contempt  of  Court Act (Act No. 70 of  1971),  1971--Ss.         2(b),  10 and 12(1) read with Article 215,  Constitution  of         India--Remitting the punishment awarded after accepting  the         apology  tendered by the contemnor and ordering him  to  pay         the cost of paper books, whether valid--Whether endorsing to         the  Registrar a copy of the wireless message, addressed  to         the State counsel, for information only amounts to contempt.

HEADNOTE:             Pursuant to telegraphic information dated 5 August  1975         received from the Advocate General, Madhya Pradesh, communi-         cating  the  directions of the Jabalpur Bench of  the,  High         Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 1 August 1975, for the produc-         tion of a detenu held under s. 3(1)(a) of the MISA  1971  in         the  court  on  8 August 1975; the  appellant,  a   district         Magistrate,   instructed  the Superintendent, Central  Jail,         Raipur,  to  send the  detenu  to   Jabalpur   under  strong         guard  for his production before the High Court on 8  August         1975.   The  detenu was duly produced in court on  8  August         1975.             While  seeking a clarification from the Home  Secretary,         on  the order passed by the State-Government under  s.  268,         Criminal  Procedure Code,  which  was gazetted on  1  August         1975,  as  to whether the detenu, under the MISA  is  to  be         produced before the High Court in connection with the habeas         corpus petition, the appellant also spoke to the  Government         advocate  and the Advocate General about  the  notification.         Since they desired the copy of the notification, the  appel-         lant  despatched a wireless message to  Advocate-General  as         follows                  "In  the  light of the above notification,  he  was                  requested to request the court not to insist on the                  production  of VBT as there is strong.  possibility                  of disturbance of public order if VBT is taken  out                  from jail.  Kindly inform the Government  regarding                  the action taken."         A copy of the wireless message was endorsed to the  respond-         ent by ’way of abundant caution.  Viewing this as  amounting         to  an expression by the appellant of his inability to  obey         the  order  of  the. court on account  of  the  notification

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

       issued  by the State, Government published in  the  official         gazette on 1 August 1975, the High Court, in exercise of the         powers of the court under Art. 215 of the Constitution  read         with s. 10 of the Contempt of Court Act (Act No. 70 of 1971)         ordered  the  appellant to show cause why he should  not  be         committed  for contempt, for which the  appellant  submitted         his  reply  in  the form of an affidavit  pleading  for  the         discharge  of  rule nisi on the ground that no  contempt  of         court  was  committed and that the wireless message  to  the         Advocate-General  did  not constitute a contempt  of  court.         The  High Court found the appellant guilty for  contempt  by         holding  that  the appellant had sent the  wireless  message         dated  6 August 1975 without waiting for the reply from  the         State Government regarding the clarification of its  notifi-         cation,  and convicted the appellant and sentenced  him  to.         suffer imprisonment till the rising of the court under s. 4         of  the Contempt of Court Act 1971 and to pay a fine of  Rs.         100/-.  The High Court, however, accepted the apology of the         appellant for the purpose of remitting the punishment  under         the proviso to s. 12(1) of the Act and remitted the sentence         and  ordered the appellant to. pay the paper book costs  and         to bear  his own costs.  Hence the appeal under s.  19(1)(b)         of the Act.         Accepting the appeal to this Court,           HELD:  The order of the High Court cannot be sustained  in         view  of the tender of apology by the appellant as  well  as         the production  of the detenu.[102 D]            All these features, namely, referring to the Home  Secre-         tary  for clarification of the notification dated  1  August         1975, sending a copy of the said notification         99         to  the  Advocate-General,  directing  the   Superintendent,         Central Jail, to produce the detenu before the court and the         detenu,  in  fact,  having been  produced  before  the  High         Court--indicate  that  the appellant throughout acted  in  a         careful  and responsible manner and took all steps  in  good         faith.  [101 B-CF]             HELD  FURTHER: In the instant case, the  appellant  from         the. beginning gave directions for production of the detenu.         The. wireless message was not addressed to the court, but to         the  Advocate-General, only to apprise him of the  notifica-         tion  sent by the State Government so that a request may  be         made  to  the court not to insist on the production  of  the         detenu in the interest of public order.  The copy thereof to         the  Registrar is for  information  only.  The  absence.  of         reference to the. telephonic talk in the affidavit does  net         mean  that no such talk in fact took place.   The  appellant         tendered apology with grace and not as a coward.  The appel-         lant  at  no  stage interfered with any order  of  the  High         Court.  The appellant never showed any disobedience.  On the         contrary,  the appellant acted in obedience to the order  of         the High Court. [101 F, G-H, 1012 A-D]

JUDGMENT:                      CRIMINAL   APPELLATE   JURISDICTION:   Criminal                  AppealNo. 21 of 1976.                      (From the judgment and Order dated 20-8-1975 of                  the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Misc.  Criminal                  Case No. 1010/75).                      B. Sen, Mrs. A.K. Verma, 1. B. Dadachanji, O.C.                  Mathur and R. Narain, for the appellant.                  Nemo, for the respondents.                  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

           RAY,  C.J.--This is an appeal under section 19(1)(b)  of         the  Contempt  of Courts Act, 1971 referred to  as  the  Act         against the  order dated 20 August,. 1975 of the High  Court         at Jabalpur convicting  the appellant and sentencing him  to         suffer  imprisonment  till  the rising of  the  Court  under         section  4  of the Act and to pay a fine of Rs.  100/-.  The         High Court however accepted the apology of the appellant for         the  purpose of remitting the punishment under the   proviso         to  section 12(1) of the Act and remitted the  sentence  and         ordered  the  appellant to pay the paper book costs  and  to         bear his own costs.             The  appellant  is  a District  Magistrate  of  District         Rajnandgaon in Madhya Pradesh.             A  detenu  Vidya Bhushan Thakur challenged in  the  High         Court  by way of a habeas corpus petition the   validity  of         his   detention order passed by the appellant under  section         3(1 )(a) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971.             On 1 August, 1975 the High Court directed the production         of the detenu in court on 8 August, 1975.             On  5  August, 1975 the appellant received  a   telegram         from   the  office of the Advocate General,  Madhya  Pradesh         intimating  the  appellant the order of the  High  Court  to         produce  the  detenu Vidya Bhushan Thakur  before  the  High         Court on 8 August, 1975 in connection with the habeas corpus         petition.             Immediately on receipt of the telegram  from the  office         of  the Advocate General the appellant communicated the same         to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur directing him to         send the detenu  to         100         Jabalpur  under strong guard for his production  before  the         High Court on 8 August, 1975.  The order was communicated to         the Superintendent, Central Jail Raipur on the same day  and         accordingly the Superintendent, sent the detenu on 6 August,         1975 at 5.35 p.m. to Jabalpur and thereafter the detenu  was         duly produced in Court on 8  August, 1975.             The  State Government had passed an order under  section         268 of the Criminal Procedure Code which was  published   in         the  Official  Gazette  on 1 August,  1975.   The  appellant         referred the matter to the Home Secretary for  clarification         of  .the   notification vide  a  wireless  message  dated  6         August, 1975 as to whether the detenus under the Maintenance         of  Internal  Security Act are to. be produced  before   the         High  Court in connection with the,habeas corpus  petitions.         The  appellant  also spoke to the Government Advocate  on  6         August  1975  and brought to his notice the above  notifica-         tion  of the State Government. The Government  Advocate  in-         formed the appellant on telephone, that neither the Advocate         General  nor the ,High Court had so far received a  copy  of         the  said notification.  The  appellant  then  informed  the         Government Advocate that he would be sending a  copy of  the         said  notification by wireless for information.  The  appel-         lant  despatched  the  wireless message  to  the  Government         AdVocate at Advocate General’s address quoting the notifica-         tion as received from the Government.             The  wireless message quoted the. notification  and  the         request  of  the appellant to the Advocate  General  was  as         follows :--                        "In  the light of above Government  Notifica-                  tion  he was requested to request the Court not  to                  insist on the production of Vidya Bhushan Thakur as                  there  is  strong  possibility  of  disturbance  of                  public  order if Vidya Bhusban Thakur is taken  out                  from jail.  Kindly inform the Government  regarding                  the action taken."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

           On 6 August, 1975 after the telephonic conversation with         the  Government Advocate, the appellant again  directed  the         Superintendent,  Central Jail, Raipur to produce the  detenu         before  the High Court on the date of hearing  and  informed         the  Advocate  General  that the detenu  would  be  produced         before   the High COurt and the detenu was in fact  produced         before the Court.             The  High Court took the view that the wireless  message         dated 6 August, 1975 addressed to the Advocate General  with         a   copy to the. Registrar of the High CoUrt amounted to  an         expression  by the  appellant of his inability to  obey  the         order of the Court on account of  the notification issued by         the State Government published in the Official Gazette on  1         August, 1975.  The High Court ordered the appellant to  show         cause  why he should not be committed for contempt in  exer-         cise  of the’ powers of the Court under Article 215  of  the         Constitution read with section 10 of the Act.             The  appellant  appeared  before the High  Court  on  13         August,  1975. The case was adjourned to 14 August, 1975  to         enable the filing of a reply which was submitted in the form         of an affidavit  together with some enclosures.  The  appel-         lant pleaded for the discharge of  Rule         101         Nisi  on the ground that no contempt of court was  committed         and  that wireless message to the Advocate General  did  not         constitute a contempt of court.             The High Court by order dated 20 August, 1975 found  the         appellant  guilty of contempt by holding that the  appellant         had  sent the wireless message dated 6 August, 1975  without         waiting  for reply from the State Government  regarding  the         clarification of its Notification.           The  appellant  on  6 August, 1975 referred  to  the  Home         Secretary  for  clarification of the  notification  dated  1         August, 1975.  The appellant sent a copy of the notification         to the  Advocate  General.  The appellant also directed  the         Superintendent,   Central   Jail,  Raipur   to  produce  the         detenu  before  the  Court.  The detenu  in  fact  was  pro-         duced  before the High Court.  All these  features  indicate         that  the  appellant throughout acted in a careful  and  re-         sponsible manner.              The reply of the Government to the clarification  asked         for  by  the appellant on 6 August, 1975 was received  on  8         August,  1975,  that is to say two days after  the  wireless         message had been sent to the Advocate General.  The clarifi-         cation  message of the Government reached  the appellant  in         the afternoon of 8 August, 1975, viz., the date on which the         detenu was to have been produced in court. The State Govern-         ment in the note clarifying the position informed the appel-         lant  that in case the appellant was advised to produce  the         detenu before the High Court and if the High Court  insisted         on  such  production the  High Court should be informed well         before the date on which the detenu is to be produced by  an         affidavit sworn by an officer in charge that there is danger         to  public order if the detenu as produced. It appears  that         the appellant had acted just as the Government clarification         suggested.         The appellant gave the notification to the Advocate  General         because  the latter did not have it and asked for  it.   The         appellant asked for clarification from the State  Government         as to the notification because of the situation in which  he         was   placed.   The appellant sent     instructions  to  the         Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur to produce the  detenu.         The detenu was produced before the High Court. The appellant         took  all  steps  in good faith.   The  appellant  from  the         beginning gave directions for production of the detenu.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

           The High Court held that the affidavit of the  appellant         contained  no  reference  to the telephonic  talk  with  the         Advocate General pursuant to which a telegram had been  sent         and therefore it was a false affidavit.  The High Court also         held  that sending a copy of the wireless message  addressed         to  the Advocate General to the Registrar of the High  Court         for information amounted to an attempt to interfere with the         order of the High Court.             The  appellant sent a copy of the wireless  message  ad-         dressed to the Advocate General to the Registrar for  infor-         mation  only.  The appellant took all steps to  produce  the         detenu  even  before  the receipt of  the  clarification  or         advice by the State Government for production of the  detenu         before  the  High Court.  The appellant  sent  the  wireless         message  to the Advocate General only to apprise him of  the         notification  sent by the State Government.   The  appellant         sent that information inasmuch         102         as  the Government Advocate had informed the appellant  that         neither the Advocate General nor the High Court was aware of         the  said notification issued by the State Government.   The         appellant  requested  the Advocate General  to  request  the         Court  not to insist on the production having regard to  the         public order which request was consistent with the direction         of the State Government.         The  absence  of  reference to the telephonic  talk  in  the         affidavit  does  not  mean that no such talk  in  fact  took         place. The appellant produced the telephone bill as well  as         the letter of the Advocate General to show that there was in         fact a telephonic conversation.  The appellant  communicated         to  the  Advocate General in the discharge of  his  official         duties  the  notification  issued by  the  Government.   The         appellant requested the Advocate General to request the High         Court  not to insist on the production.  The wireless.  mes-         sage was not  addressed to the Court.The original  addressee         was the Advocate General.  A copy was sent to the  Registrar         for  information that such a telegram had been sent  to  the         Advocate General.             The  appellant tendered apology with grace and not as  a         coward.The appellant produced the detenu.  The appellant  at         no  stage interfered with any order of the High Court.   The         appellant  never showed any disobedience.  On  the  contrary         the  appellant acted in obedience to the order of  the  High         Court.            The  High  Court  accepted the apology  for  the  limited         purpose  of remitting the punishment. The order of the  High         Court cannot  be sustaining in view of the tender of apology         by  the appellant as well as the production of  the  detenu.         The appeal is accepted.  The judgment and order of the  High         Court are set aside.         S.R.                                        Appeal allowed.         103