JUDGMENT

Harries, C J - The respondents Mirza Asdaq Baig, Mr. William Douglas Robinson and Mr. Ernest William Cornish Wace have appeared in this Court in answer to a notice show cause why they should not be connected and punished for contempt of Court, appreciate the points involved, it will be necessary to set out the facts giving rise to lese proceedings in some detail. On 25th October 1943, Mr. Homi Rustomji Pardivala, Barrister-at-Law and an Advocate practising a the original side of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, was instructed by a firm of Solicitors, Messrs Kanga and Company Bombay, to proceed to Lahore and to is truct and appear with Mr. Jiwan Lal Kapur, a Barrister practising in this Court on behalf of Mrs. Purnima Bannerji of Allahabad, ho was proposing to file a petition under: 491, Criminal P.C, relating to one Jai 'arkash Narain who was being detained in his Province under Rule 26, Defence of India Jules. In pursuance of the instructions received from the Solicitors, Mr. Pardivala rived at Lahore on 5th November 1948 and immediately got into touch with Mr. Jiwan jal Kapur whom he instructed to file an application under Section 491, Criminal P.C. This application came before a Bench consisting if myself and my learned brother Abdur Jahman, J. on Monday 8th November 1948. kale. Pardivala had obtained the necessary jermission from the Court to appear in the case. When this petition was presented, the 3ench pointed out that there was no prayer for the release of the detenue and it was suggested that the petition should be amended and a prayer for release added. The petition vas accordingly amended and was again presented to the same Bench on Tuesday morning, 9th November, when the Bench admitted the application and directed notice to issue to the Punjab Government. After this order had been made, an application was made by Mr. Jiwan Lal Kapur for an inter; view with Jai Parkash Narain. The latter was not a person for whom Mr. Jiwan Lal Kapur and Mr. Pardivala appeared and in the circumstances the Bench was not prepared to consider this application until an application had been made to the Government for an interview and had been refused. Counsel were, therefore, informed that an application for an interview should be made to Government and in the event of a refusal an application could then be made to the Court when it would be considered on the merits. It is said that after this application had been made Mr. Pardivala remained in the Court premises until about 4 P.M. when the Court rose. According to him he left the Court of the Chief Justice at 4 P.M. and proceeded towards the building of the Bar Association. Outside that building he was accosted by the respondent Baig who told him that he was a Sub-Inspector of Police, C.I.D. Lahore. When Baig was satisfied that Mr. Pardivala was the person whom he was seeking, he arrested him under Rule 129, Defence of India Rules, and informed Mr. Pardivala that he was so arresting him under the orders of Mr. Robinson, Superintendent of Police, C.I.D. Lahore. Mr. Pardivala was allowed to have some conversation with Mr. Jiwan Lal Kapur and was then taken to the Civil Lines Police Station and later to the Lahore Port Jail. In the Lahore Port Jail he was interrogated at some length by Baig as to who he was and why he had come to Lahore and after such interrogation he was conducted to a cell and there detained.

2. According to Mr. Pardivala, he did not see Baig on 10th November but on the 11th the latter came to him. Mr. Pardivala says that he told Baig that he wished to address an application to this Court and also to write letters to the Advocates-General of Lahore and Bombay. He requested Baig to give him some writing material which the latter did and Mr. Pardivala says that he then wrote an application purporting to be under Section 491, Criminal P.C., addressed, to this Court praying for his release and alleging that his arrest and detention were unwarranted and illegal.