Agarwala, J.

[1] A case under Section 324, I.P.C., was pending before Sri P. S. Fanthome, City Magistrate, Meerut. An order convicting the accused Vijay Pal Singh in the case was passed by the learned Magistrate on 3-5-1954. Two days later, Vijay Pal Singh made an application to the learned Magistrate praying that certain garments, which were material exhibits in the case, viz., a shirt and a banyan, which were alleged to be stained with the complainant's blood be sealed with the court seal in the presence of the learned Magistrate and the parties so that there might be no chance of their being tampered with later on. The learned Magistrate rejected this application with a short order, which is quoted below in full:

"The state of the garments has received mention in the judgment. No need to seal them now."

Sd. P. S. Fanthome. 5-5-1954.

The accused then filed an appeal in the Sessions Court at Meerut on the 6th of May and on the same day made an application to that court stating what an application had been made in the court of the City Magistrate requesting him to seal the aforesaid garments under the seal of the court, but the application was rejected. The accused as- serted in the application that the state of garments did not find mention in the judgment in the manner in which it was emphatically and repeatedly pressed before the lower court and that the court did not at all take into consideration what the defence had argued regarding the blood stains on the clothes. The prayer in the application was that Exs. 1 and 2 might be sealed under the court seal in the interest of justice and equity. The. learned Additional Sessions Judge, who was then acting for the Sessions Judge, directed the learned Magistrate "to place these clothes material Exs. 1 and 2 under a sealed cover. He must get them placed under a sealed cover after fully examining and noting their condition and in his own presence".

[2] The learned Magistrate instead of complying with this order returned the order with the following remarks :

"R. I. O. (returned in original) with the request that the law under which "this directive is issued may kindly be communicated.

It is respectfully submitted that the condition of these material exhibits has already received specific mention in the judgment passed by this Court. The accused has also had an order on this very subject from this Court. So far as this Court is aware no revision has been moved against that order."

The learned Sessions Judge, who had now taken over charge, considered that this was a clear and open defiance of the orders of the Court passed on the 6th of May and constituted a contempt of that Court. He, therefore, brought this matter to the notice of this Court with a prayer that this Court might take such action as it may deem proper. The matter was put up before a Bench of this Court who, considering that as a 'prima facie' case was made out against Sri F. S. Fanthome, issued notice to him to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of Court.

[3] In answer to the above notice Sri F. S. Fanthome appeared before us on 2-8-1954. A statement was made by him before us in which he stated that the exhibits had already been sealed with the court seal immediately after he had delivered his judgment on 3-5-1954, and the condition of the garments had already been described in his judgment convicting the accused.

[4] The explanation of Sri F. S. Fanthome as to why he did not comply with the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and as to why he wrote in that manner to him is that he thought that the fact that the exhibits had been sealed by him already must have been not known to the learned Addl, Sessions Judge when he passed the aforesaid order and that he also wanted to be certain whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge desired him to reopen the bundle and then to note something in addition to what he had already noted about the garments in his judgment. He further states that he ne