Contempt of court proceedings may be initiated against individuals who fail to comply with court orders, but the court may consider explanations and apologies offered by the contemners before imposing punishment.

( 1 ) THIS contempt Rule is against Mr. D. Rudra, Mr. B. K. Sarkar and Mr. A. K. Dasgupta, Additional District Magistrates Alipore and the Officer-in-Charge, Beliaghata Police Station in circumstances stated below: criminal Appeal No. 86 of 1967 preferred by Shyamsundar Pathak and Kapildeo Narayan Sharma, A. S. I. of Police, Calcutta, against conviction under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code, was dismissed by this Court by an order dated July 18, 1968 and this order was communicated and received by the District Magistrate on July 20, 1968.

( 2 ) THE order reads as follows:"we direct the accused-appellants, namely, Shyamsundar Pathak and Kapildeo Narayan Sharma be called upon to surrender forthwith to their hail to serve out the remainder of sentence imposed upon them. "

( 3 ) THIS order was not, however, carried out by the contemners. Who functioned as Additional District Magistrates, Alipore, during the relevant period, as disclosed during hearing of an application under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution filed in September, 1968, and heard some time after long vacation in November, 1968.

( 4 ) SUB-RULE (5) of Rule 43 of the Criminal Rules and Orders reads as follows:"in the cases mentioned in Clauses (3) and (4) above the Court by which the accused was admitted to bail shall forthwith call upon the accused to surrender, and issue a notice to the surety in Form No. (P) 65 to produce the accused within three days after the receipt of the notice. If no surrender is made within the period a warrant of arrest shall issue, and at the same time the surety shall be called upon to show cause why his bail bond shall not be forfeited. No extension of the time to surrender or to produce the accused shall be allowed in any case. "

( 5 ) IN view of the above order by this Court and the relevant Rule, the learned Magistrates should have directed the surety to produce the two persons within three days and on the surety's failure to do that, issue warrants against convicts and forfeit the bail bonds of the surety. The order-sheet of the case does not however indicate that the learned Magistrates were conscious of their obligation to carry out the order of a superior court or that they ever applied their mind. They seemed to be prisoners in the hands of their Bench Clerk and signed whatever draft order was placed before them.

( 6 ) THE order of this Court was produced before the learned Additional District Magistrate on July 25. 1968 and he signed a routine order in the hand of the Judicial Peshkar directing production of the convicted persons on August 2, 1968, taking no notice of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 43 of the Criminal Rules and Orders. On August 2, the convicted persons were not produced and then followed a series of adjournments at the instance of the surety for production of the convicted persons, apparently taking no notice of the order of this Court for taking them into custody forthwith or of the Rules regarding surrender. The contemners are holding responsible posts in the judicial administration as Additional District Magistrates and they exercise their supervising authority over the Magistrates at the station. Apparently they were never troubled over their authority to extend time on prayer of surety in clear violation of this Court's orders. The orders again did not disclose that they applied their mind, but obviously they signed the draft orders placed before them by the Judicial Peshkar. This continued for several dates and the convicted persons were neither arrested nor the surety pulled up by way of forfeiture of bond. Warrant of arrest is ordered after four adjournments for appearance on 26th August, 1968. Next dale is fixed a month ahead on September 20, 1968 and in the meantime, on September 10, an enquiry was made from this Court regarding surrender. This alerted the office and an order for drawing up proceeding under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is placed before the learned Magistrates