RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.

( 1 ) SRI C. M. L. Bhatnagar, Additional District Magistrate, Jhansi, has been called upon, on a report by the Sessions Judge of Farrukhabad, to show cause why he should not be dealt with for having committed contempt of the Court of Session, Farrukhabad, when he was City Magistrate at Farrukhabad.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the taking of this action are that Sri Bhatnagar demanded security from sobaran Singh, against whom a case under Section 19 (f), Arms Act, was under investigation, and also in another case from Lal Mohammad and others, who were prosecuted under Section 13, Gambling Act. The offences against the accused in both the casts were bailable, and Sri bhatnagar ordered them to furnish bail. He, however, got reports from the Tahsil about the adequacy of the sureties and, even on receipt of a report in Sobarans case that the sureties had sufficient means, required further reports. The accused in both the oases approached the Sessions judge, Farrukbabad, In the case of Sobaran Singh the Sessions Judge, after remarking that the non acceptance of his bail by him was scandalous ordered that he be released on bail. A copy of this order was communicated to Sri Bhatnagar with a forwarding note by the Munsarim of the sessions Court saying "copy of the order forwarded for comp-liance" This copy of the order described the order to be in a case in which Sobaran Singh had been convicted under Section 19 (f), Arms Act. Due to this wrong heading it appears that the office of Sri Bhatnagar could not put up the necessary papers, and he ordered "seen. File". On the 27th November the accused approached the Sessions Judge again, intimating that inspite of his orders he was not released. The Sessions Judge ordered the issue of release warrant from his Court and called upon Sri bhatnagar to explain why his order dated the 23rd November was not complied with. Sri bhatnagar did not submit any explanation. He just filed this order with the note "seen. File and include in case file. "

( 3 ) SIMILARLY when Lal Mohammad and other accused were not released on bail by Sri Bhatnagar upto 4-1-1951 in compliance with the Sessions Judges order which was forwarded to him with the note "for information and necessary action," (the letters n. a. having been used as abbreviations for necessary action) the Sessions Judge ordered the issue of release warrants and called upon Sri Bhatnagar to explain why he did not release them.

( 4 ) SRI Bhatnagar forwarded his explanation to the Sessions Judge through the District Magistrate, and in this explanation he explained why he could not take action on the orders communicated by the office of the Sessions Judge. His explanation for not complying with the order of the 23rd november was that there was no case with him in which Sobaran Singh had been convicted. This explanation was not considered sufficient by the learned Sessions Judge and we agree with him. It was the plain duty of Sri Bhatnagar to have referred back the matter to the Sessions Judge for further directions. He should have realised that the order related to the release of an accused and that there seemed to have been some mistake in the reference, even if it be believed that he or his office could not have thought of the case of Sobaran Singh in which the bonds filed by the sureties had to be sent to the Tahsil twice for report.

( 5 ) HIS explanation for not sending an explanation which was called for by the Sessions Judge in his order dated the 27th November was that in view of the release of the accused he did not con-Eider any explanation necessary and so did not send any. Practically to the same effect was his explanation with respect to the second case. After saying so much which, as I have already said, was not a satisfactory explanation, he then went on to explain the correct legal position, a conduct which, even if his view of the law was correct, was much open to objection and was a conduct which has been criticised by this

Click Here to Read the rest of this document