The High Court has the power to grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in a contempt of court proceeding under Article 134(1)(C) of the Constitution of India, but only on the very limited grounds akin to those on which the Privy Council was granting special leave.

JAGANNADHA DAS, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment and order of this Court in Original Criminal Misc. Cases Nos. 11/51 and 14/51 both of which were dealt with by this Court by a common order. By the said order the two petitioners, viz. , Sri S. S. Roy, then Magistrate, 1st class, Cuttack, and Sri Sankar Charan Sahu, then Sub-Inspector of Police, cuttack, were adjudged guilty of contempt of Court and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-and Rs. 50/- respectively. An objection was taken in the course of the argument that as against the order of the High Court adjudging any person to have committed contempt and sentencing him to punishment, no appeal lies or at any rate that the High Court has no power to grant leave to appeal. This objection will be dealt with towards the close of this order and after dealing with the other contentions that have been raised on the merits of the application. To understand those contentions correctly, it is necessary to state a few facts as shortly as possible.

( 2 ) ONE Hrudananda Sahu was the judgment-debtor in a money-decree obtained against him in the year 1935. A warrant of personal arrest was issued against him by the Additional Munsif of Cuttack, and was handed over on 15-4-1950 to a process-server, one Brundaban Mohanty, for execution. The said Hrudananda sahu happened on that day to attend the Court of Sri B. Pal, Magistrate, 1st class. Cuttack, as an accused in a criminal case. He appears to have been ordered to be released on bail. After the lapse of about four hours thereafter and while he was still near about the precincts of that Court, he came to know that the process-server of the Munsif's court was preparing to arrest him in execution of the warrant, obtained against him by the decree-holder. He then appears to have moved from one Magistrate to the other for protection from arrest and ultimately petitioner 1 herein Sri S. S. Roy, Magistrate, 1st Class, cuttack, passed an order purporting to be under Section 144, Criminal P. C. restraining the Civil Court process-server from arresting the judgment-debtor iu execution of the warrant of arrest, till he reached his home, and directed the notice of the said restraint order to be served on him at once. It would appear that no formal copy of this order for service was prepared in the office of the magistrate, nor sealed or signed by him, nor, was it in fact served bn the Civil court process-server through the usual channel. It was also not endorsed for service through the police. But it would appear that the second petitioner herein the Sub-Inspector of police, received some intimation about a possible disturbance and came on the spot, at the time when the process-server was either about to arrest the judgment-debtor, or had in law, already just arrested him. The second petitioner on the strength of the order of the Magistrate, the original of which was somehow brought to the spot and shown to him by the judgment-debtor's lawyer, directed the process-server not to interfere with the liberty of the judgment-debtor and brought about the escape of the judgmentdebtor, thereby either preventing his arrest by the process-server or releasing him from his custody. The Munsif who issued the warrant of arrest received a report about this from the process-server. He thereupon, made an inquiry and sent up a report to this court against petitioner 2 the Sub-Inspector of Police, holding that his action amounted to wilful obstruction to the regular process of his Court constituting contempt of Court and recommending that proper action be taken. That was treated by this Court as a motion for proceedings for contempt and was numbered as Orl. Cr. Misc. 11 of 1951, and the same came up for orders of this court. When that motion came up, this Court issued notice, suo motu, also to petitioner 1 the Magistrate, 1st Class, Cuttack, to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt for havin