JUDGMENT

S. RANGANATHAN, J.:— A Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta found he appellant guilty of contempt of court and, rejecting the apology tendered by him, imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000 / -. Aggrieved by the above order the appellant has preferred this appeal petition.

2. The petition was originally numbered as Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13144 of 1989 and was dismissed by an order dated 23-10-89. It was, thereafter, pointed out that the petition must have been treated as an appeal petition under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Accordingly we recalled our order dated 23-10-1989 and directed the SLP to be renumbered as a Criminal Appeal and listed for hearing. That is how this appeal comes up before us now.

3. There has been a delay in the filing of Special Leave Petition and, consequently, this appeal. After hearing both parties, we condone the delay in the filing of the petition. We admit the appeal and proceed to dispose it of.

4. On 15-6-87, the Division Bench of the High Court passed an order to the following effect :

"There will be an interim order until the disposal of this appeal to the effect that the respondents are restrained from interfering with the possession of the writ petitioners in respect of the disputed lands and/or from cultivating the said lands."

The State Government was the "respondent" and, therefore, the restraint order was directed to the State Government and its concerned officers. The "writ petitioners" referred to in the order were the applicants in the Contempt Application moved before the High Court and the respondents herein. On 21-6-1987 counsel for. the respondents apprised the appellant, who was the Junior Land Reforms Officer (J.L.R.O.), as well as the Block Development Officer (B.D.O.), of the above order. The Block Level Co-ordination Committee (B.L.C.C.) also met soon thereafter and passed a resolution on 20-7-1987 that "the Officer-in-charge of the Kultuli Police Station should take necessary action according to the order of the Honourable High Court". The appellant Tapan Kumar Mukherjee, was a member of the B.L.C.C., was present at this Committee meeting and was a party to the resolution. However, on 3-8-1987, a memo was issued to the Officer-in-charge of the Kultuli Police Station. The memo, which was signed by the appellant, read:

"The following pattaholders are entitled to cultivate the schedule of lands this year. So he is requested to give police help to the pattaholders during the cultivation period."

The names of the pattaholders and the details of the land were then given in the memo and there is no dispute that they were the pattaholders in respect of the lands in dispute which were the subject matter of the stay order who were contesting the right of the respondents to cultivate the lands. Patently, this memorandum was directed and clearly in violation of the injunction order passed by the High Court.

5. After considering the facts, the High Court came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of wilful disobedience of the order passed by the court on 15-6-87. It did not accept the apology tendered by the appellant nor did it accept the explanation given by the appellant that the memo dated 3-8-87 had been issued due to inadvertence.

6. Before us also it is contended that the memo dated 3-8-87 had been inadvertently signed by the appellant as it was one of the several memos which he had to issue in connection with various disputes regarding cultivation rights that arose during the cultivation season. The Government had issued guidelines that persons actually cultivating the lands should be helped to complete their cultivation without hindrance and that the weaker sections of the community should be given full protection. In the light of these guidelines, a number of memos were issued to the police officials directing them to render their assistance to the pattadars to complete their cultivation. A number of such memos were put up for appellants signatur