Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—This contempt petition raises questions to be answered, keeping in view the recent amendments brought about in the Criminal Procedure Code, as would be referred to hereinafter, and also the scope and extent of the exercise of powers vested in this Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The applicants allege that they were detained unauthorizedly at Police Station Lar, District Deoria, without following the procedure for arrest and in complete violation of the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Joginder Kumar’s case reported in (1994) 4 SCC 260 and further elaborated in the celebrated decision of D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416. The applicant alleges that he was detained in the night of 7/8.8.2005 and the applicant No. 2 was challaned under Section 151, Cr.P.C. in a manner which violated the aforesaid provisions, facts with regard to which have been stated in paragraphs 13 and 14 of this application. The applicant alleges that the opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 have, therefore, made themselves liable for contempt keeping in view the decision of the Apex Court referred to herein above.

2. The opposite parties have filed their Affidavit and have set up their defence denying the allegations and further that the applicant No. 2 had been arrested under Section 151, Cr.P.C. and that the applicants had also approached the police station and at their instance an F.I.R. has also been lodged. The facts have been set out to indicate as to how the applicant No. 2 was arrested and then enlarged on bail. It is further alleged that the applicant No. 1 was never detained or arrested and, therefore, there was no violation at all so as to constitute any contempt as alleged by the applicants.

3. Learned Counsel for the applicant in the rejoinder on merits has urged that the entries made at the Police Station in the records clearly indicate that the guidelines framed in D.K. Basu’s case have been violated and have not been complied with at all.

4. This matter was taken up on 3.11.2006 on which date the Court raised certain queries and invited arguments for ascertaining as to whether an action for contempt can proceed in view of the recent amendments brought about in the Criminal Procedure Code through Act No. 25 of 2005. On the request of the Court, the Advocate General of State of U.P. Sri S.M.A. Kazmi assisted by Sri Arvind Kumar, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel have also advanced their submissions throwing light on the issues raised in this contempt application. The prime issue which has come up for consideration is as to whether after the amendments that have been brought about in the Criminal Procedure Code, can this Court still proceed to take action for contempt for violation of the guidelines prescribed in D.K. Basu’s case (supra).

5. Sri P.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant, has invited the attention of the Court to the amendments brought about in the Criminal Procedure Code and has urged that the said amendments are insufficient and do not contain all the provisions as indicated in the guidelines framed by the Apex Court in D.K. Basu’s case. He, therefore, contends that the said decision still holds the field and any violation of the provisions contained therein makes one liable for contempt. With the able assistant of all the learned Counsels, the facts that emerge are as follows.

6. The Apex Court, while dealing with a case of an unauthorized detention in the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (supra), laid down in paras 21 to 22 as under :

“21. Then, there is the right to have someone informed, that right of the arrested person, upon request, to have someone informed and to consult privately with a lawyer was recognised by Section 56 (1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 in England (Civil Actions Against the Police — Rechard Clayton and Hugh Tomlinson; p. 313). That section pr