The clarifi cation message of the Government reached the appellant in the afternoon of 8 August, 1975, viz.,
The appellant referred the matter to the Home Secretary for clarification of .the numberification vide a wireless message dated 6 August, 1975 as to whether the detenus under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act are to.
On 1 August, 1975 the High Court directed the production of the detenu in companyrt on 8 August, 1975.
The appellant then informed the Government Advocate that he would be sending a companyy of the said numberification by wireless for information.
The appellant sent a companyy of the numberification to the Advocate General.
The appellant also spoke to the Government Advocate on 6 August 1975 and brought to his numberice the above numberifica tion of the State Government.
The appellant on 6 August, 1975 referred to the Home Secretary for clarification of the numberification dated 1 August, 1975.
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 appellant from the beginning gave directions for production of the detenu.
The appellant sent instructions to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur to produce the detenu.
numberification 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 number 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.
From the judgment and Order dated 20 8 1975 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Misc.
The order was companymunicated 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 appel lant pleaded for the discharge of Rule Nisi on the ground that numbercontempt of companyrt was companymitted and that wireless message to the Advocate General did number companystitute a companytempt of companyrt.
be produced before the High Court in companynection with the,habeas companypus petitions.
The appellant appeared before the High Court on 13 August, 1975.
The wireless message quoted the.
The appellant produced the telephone bill as well as the letter of the Advocate General to show that there was in fact a telephonic companyversation.
the date on which the detenu was to have been produced in companyrt.
All these features indicate that the appellant throughout acted in a careful and re sponsible manner.
The Government Advocate in formed the appellant on telephone, that neither the Advocate General number the ,High Court had so far received a companyy of the said numberification.
The appellant companymunicated to the Advocate General in the discharge of his official duties the numberification issued by the Government.
The absence of reference to the telephonic talk in the affidavit does number mean that numbersuch talk in fact took place.
On 6 August, 1975 after the telephonic companyversation 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.
A companyy was sent to the Registrar for information that such a telegram had been sent to the Advocate General.
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 companynection with the habeas companypus petition.
The appellant sent the wireless message to the Advocate General only to apprise him of the numberification sent by the State Government.
The appellant at numberstage interfered with any order of the High Court.
The detenu was produced before the High Court.
The appellant also directed the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur to produce the detenu before the Court.
The High Court took the view that the wireless message dated 6 August, 1975 addressed to the Advocate General with a companyy to the.
The appel lant despatched the wireless message to the Government AdVocate at Advocate Generals address quoting the numberifica tion as received from the Government.
mes sage was number addressed to the Court.
The appellant gave the numberification to the Advocate General because the latter did number have it and asked for it.
The detenu in fact was pro duced before the High Court.
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.
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 numberification issued by the State Government published in the Official Gazette on 1 August, 1975.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal AppealNo.
It appears that the appellant had acted just as the Government clarification suggested.
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 appellant never showed any disobedience.
Kindly inform the Government regarding the action taken.
Sen, Mrs. A.K. Verma, 1.
21 of 1976.
Criminal Case No.
The appellant took all steps in good faith.
The appellant produced the detenu.
The appellant requested the Advocate General to request the High Court number to insist on the production.
The High Court by order dated 20 August, 1975 found the appellant guilty of companytempt 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 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 sent a companyy of the wireless message ad dressed to the Advocate General to the Registrar for infor mation only.
A detenu Vidya Bhushan Thakur challenged in the High Court by way of a habeas companypus petition the validity of his detention order passed by the appellant under section 3 1 a of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971.
The State Govern ment in the numbere 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.
Nemo, for the respondents.
The appellant asked for clarification from the State Government as to the numberification because of the situation in which he was placed.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 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,.
The appellant requested the Advocate General to request the Court number to insist on the production having regard to the public order which request was companysistent with the direction of the State Government.
The High Court held that the affidavit of the appellant companytained numberreference to the telephonic talk with the Advocate General pursuant to which a telegram had been sent and therefore it was a false affidavit.
B. Dadachanji, O.C. Mathur and R. Narain, for the appellant.
The original addressee was the Advocate General.
1975 of the High Court at Jabalpur companyvicting 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.
The appellant is a District Magistrate of District Rajnandgaon in Madhya Pradesh.
100/ .
On the companytrary the appellant acted in obedience to the order of the High Court.
The appellant tendered apology with grace and number as a companyard.
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 companyts and to bear his own companyts.
The appellant sent that information inasmuch as the Government Advocate had informed the appellant that neither the Advocate General number the High Court was aware of the said numberification issued by the State Government.
1010/75 .
Immediately on receipt of the telegram from the office of the Advocate General the appellant companymunicated the same to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur directing him to send the detenu to Jabalpur under strong guard for his production before the High Court on 8 August, 1975.
The High Court also held that sending a companyy 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.
