# ARUN KSHETRAPAL v. REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT, JABALPUR & ANR - **Citation:** [1977] 1 S.C.R. 98 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1976-08-04 - **Case number:** Contempt of Court Act (Act No. 70 of 1971 - **Bench:** A. N. Ray, M. H. Beg, Jaswant Singh - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/arun-kshetrapal-v-registrar-high-court-jabalpur-anr-6995 - **Pages:** 5 ## Headnote Contempt of Court Act (Act No. 70 of 1971), 1971-Ss. 2{b), JO am! 12{1) rrnd with Article 215, Conslitulion of India-Remitting the punishment awarded after accepting the apology ·rendered by the contemnor and ordering him to pay .the cost of pcver books, wlzetlier valid-Whether erulorsing 10 the Registrar a cdpy of the wireless message, addressed ro the State co1111se/, for infonnatio'n only a1nounts to conte1npt. Pursuant to telegraphic ini'ormation dated 5 August 1975 received from the Advocate General, Madhya Pradesh, communicating the directions of the Jabalpur Bench of the, High: Court of Madhya Pradesh dated' 1 August 1975, for the production of ·a detenu held under s. 3(1) (a) of the MISA 1971 in the· court 011 8 August 1975; the appellant, a district Magistrate, instructed the· Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, to send the detenu to Jabalpur under strong guard for his production before the High Court on 8 August 1975. The detenu was duly produced in court on 8 August 1975. · While seeking a clarification from the Home Secretary, on the order passed by the State Government under s. 268, Criminal Procedure Code, which was gazetted on 1 August 1975, as to whether the detenu, under the MlSA is to be produced before the High Court in connection with the habeas corpus petition, the aPPdlant also spoke to the Government advocate and the Advocate. General about the notification. Since they desired the copy of the notification,. the appellant despatched a wireles~ message to Advocate-General as follows : "l"n the light of the above notification, he was requested to request the court not to insist on the production of VBT as there is strong possibility of disturbance of public order if VBT is taken out from jail. Kindly inform the Government regardin12: the action taken." A copy of the wireless message was endorsed to the respondent by way of abundant caution. Viewing this as amounting to an expression by the appel. Jant of his inability to obey the order o~ the court on account of the notification issued by the State Government published in the official gazeHe on 1 August 1975, the High Court, in exercise of the, powers of the court under Art. 215 of the Constitution read with s. 10 of the Contempt of Court Act (Act No. 70'" of 1971) ordered the appellant to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt. for which the appellant submitted his reply in the form Of an affidavit pleading for the discharge of rule 11isi on the ground that no contempt of court was committed and that the wireless message to the Advocate-General· did not constitute a contempt of court. The High Court found the appellant· guilty for contempt by holding that the appellant had sent the wireless message dated 6 August 1975 without waiting for the reply from the State Government regarding the clarification of its notification, and convicted the appellant and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment till thei rising of the court under s. 4 of the Contempt of Court Act 1971 and to pay a fihe of Rs. 100/-. The High Court, however, accepted the apology of the appellant for the purpose of remitting the punishment under the proviso to s, 12( I) of the Act and remitted' the sentence and ordered the appellant to pay the paper book costs and to bear his own costs. Hence the appeal under s. 19(1) (b) of the Act. Accepti"ng the appeal to this Court, HELD : The order of the High Court cannot be sustained in view of the tender of apology by the appellant. as well a~ the productioh of the deteOUi- [102 DJ All these features, namely, referring to the Home Secreta1·y for clar)fication or the notification dated 1 AuQust 1975. sending a copy of the said notificatii:in: r ARUN KSHETRAPAL V. REGISTRAR HIGH COURT (Ray, CJ . .) 99 to the Advocate,.General, directing the Superintendent, Central Jail, to produce the, detenu before the court and thel detenu, in fact, having beeh produced before the High Court-indicate that the appellant thro~ghout acted in a careful and r ## Text A B c D E F G H 98 ARUN KSHETRAPAL v. REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT, JABALPUR & ANR. August 4, 1976 [A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] Contempt of Court Act (Act No. 70 of 1971), 1971-Ss. 2{b), JO am! 12{1) rrnd with Article 215, Conslitulion of India-Remitting the punishment awarded after accepting the apology ·rendered by the contemnor and ordering him to pay .the cost of pcver books, wlzetlier valid-Whether erulorsing 10 the Registrar a cdpy of the wireless message, addressed ro the State co1111se/, for infonnatio'n only a1nounts to conte1npt. Pursuant to telegraphic ini'ormation dated 5 August 1975 received from the Advocate General, Madhya Pradesh, communicating the directions of the Jabalpur Bench of the, High: Court of Madhya Pradesh dated' 1 August 1975, for the production of ·a detenu held under s. 3(1) (a) of the MISA 1971 in the· court 011 8 August 1975; the appellant, a district Magistrate, instructed the· Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur, to send the detenu to Jabalpur under strong guard for his production before the High Court on 8 August 1975. The detenu was duly produced in court on 8 August 1975. · While seeking a clarification from the Home Secretary, on the order passed by the State Government under s. 268, Criminal Procedure Code, which was gazetted on 1 August 1975, as to whether the detenu, under the MlSA is to be produced before the High Court in connection with the habeas corpus petition, the aPPdlant also spoke to the Government advocate and the Advocate. General about the notification. Since they desired the copy of the notification,. the appellant despatched a wireles~ message to Advocate-General as follows : "l"n the light of the above notification, he was requested to request the court not to insist on the production of VBT as there is strong possibility of disturbance of public order if VBT is taken out from jail. Kindly inform the Government regardin12: the action taken." A copy of the wireless message was endorsed to the respondent by way of abundant caution. Viewing this as amounting to an expression by the appel. Jant of his inability to obey the order o~ the court on account of the notification issued by the State Government published in the official gazeHe on 1 August 1975, the High Court, in exercise of the, powers of the court under Art. 215 of the Constitution read with s. 10 of the Contempt of Court Act (Act No. 70'" of 1971) ordered the appellant to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt. for which the appellant submitted his reply in the form Of an affidavit pleading for the discharge of rule 11isi on the ground that no contempt of court was committed and that the wireless message to the Advocate-General· did not constitute a contempt of court. The High Court found the appellant· guilty for contempt by holding that the appellant had sent the wireless message dated 6 August 1975 without waiting for the reply from the State Government regarding the clarification of its notification, and convicted the appellant and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment till thei rising of the court under s. 4 of the Contempt of Court Act 1971 and to pay a fihe of Rs. 100/-. The High Court, however, accepted the apology of the appellant for the purpose of remitting the punishment under the proviso to s, 12( I) of the Act and remitted' the sentence and ordered the appellant to pay the paper book costs and to bear his own costs. Hence the appeal under s. 19(1) (b) of the Act. Accepti"ng the appeal to this Court, HELD : The order of the High Court cannot be sustained in view of the tender of apology by the appellant. as well a~ the productioh of the deteOUi- [102 DJ All these features, namely, referring to the Home Secreta1·y for clar)fication or the notification dated 1 AuQust 1975. sending a copy of the said notificatii:in: r ARUN KSHETRAPAL V. REGISTRAR HIGH COURT (Ray, CJ . .) 99 to the Advocate,.General, directing the Superintendent, Central Jail, to produce the, detenu before the court and thel detenu, in fact, having beeh produced before the High Court-indicate that the appellant thro~ghout acted in a careful and responsible manner and took all steps m good faith. [101 B-CF] HELD FURTHER : In the instaht case, the appellant from the beginning gave directions for production' of the_ detenu. The wireless mesoage was not addressed to the court, but to the Advocate.General, only to apprise him of tire notification sent by the State Government so that a reque5t may be made to the court not to insist on the production of the detenu in the interest of public order. The copy thereof to the Registrar is for information only. The absence of reference to the, telephonic talk in the affidavit does net mean that no such talk in fact took place. The appellant tendered apology with gr,.ce ahd not as a coward. The appellant at no stage interfered with any order of the High Court. The appellant never showed any disobedience. On the contrary, the• appellant acted in obedience to the order of the High Court. [101 F, G-H, 102 A-D] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 21 of 1976. (From the judgment and Order dated 20-8-1975 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Misc. Criminal Case No. 1010/75). B. Sen, Mrs. A. K. Verma, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and R. Narain, for the appella_nt. N emo, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, C.J.-This is an appeal under section 19(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 referred to as the Act against the order dated 20 August, 1975 of the High Court at Jabalpur convicting the appellant and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment till the rising of the Court under section 4 of the Act and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. The High Court however accepted the apology of the appellant for the purpose of remitting the punishment under the proviso to section 12 (l) of the Act and remitted the sentence and ordered the appellant to pay the paper book costs and to bear his own costs. The appellant is a District Magistrate of District Rajnandgaon in Madhya Pradesh. A ·detenu Vidya Bhushan Thakur challenged in the High Court by way of a habeas corpus petition the validity of his detention order passed by the appellant under section 3 ( 1) (a) of the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971. On 1 August, 1975 the High Court directed the production of the detenu in court on 8 August, 1975. On 5 August, 1975 the appellant received a telegram from the office of the Advocate General, Madhya Pradesh intimating the appellant the order of the High Court to produce the detenu Vidya Bhushan Thakur before the High Court on 8 August, 1975 in connection with · the habeas corpus petition. Immediately on receipt of the telegram from the office of the f\.dvocata General th~ app~llant ~oml!lunic_ated the same to the Supermtendent, Central Jail, Raipur d1rectmg him to send the detenu to B· c E F G H 100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1977] 1 S.C.R. A Jabalpur under strong guard for his producllion before the High Court on 8 August, 1975. The order was communicated to the Superintendent, Central Jail Raipur on the same day and accordingly the Superintendent, sent the detenu on 6 August, 1975 at 5.35 p.m. to Jabalpur and thereafter the detenu Wai duly produced in Court on 8 August, 1975. B The State Government had passed an order under section 268 of the Criminal Procedure Code which was published in the Official Gazette on 1i August; 1975. The appellant referred the matter to the Home Secretary for clarification of .~he notification vide a wireless message dated 6 August, 1975 as to whether the detenus under the Mainf!nance of Internal Security Act are to be produced before the High Court in connection with the._habeas corpus petitions. The appel- ·C !ant also spoke· to the Government Advocate on 6 August 1975 and brought to his notice the above notification of the State Government. The Government Advocate informed the appellant on telephone that neither the Advocate j]eneral nor the _High Court had so far received a copy of the said! noJification. The appeirant then informed the Government Advocate thiit he would be sending a copy of the said notification by wireless for information. The appellant despatched the :D wireless message to the Government Advocate at Advocate General's address quoting the notification as received from the Government. iE F ·G The wireless message quoted the notification and the request of the appellant to the Advocate General was as follows :- . "In the light o_f,.,e,bove Government Notification he was requested to request the Court not to insist on the production of Vidya Bhushan Thakur as there is strong possibility of disturbance of public order if Vidya Bhushan Thakur is taken out from jail. Kindly foform the Government regarding the action taken." On 6 August, 1975 after the telephonic conversation with the Government Advocate, the appellant again directed the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur to produce the detenu before the High Court on the date of hearing and informed the Advocate General that the detenu would be produced before the High Court and the detenu was in fact produced before the Court. The High Court took the view that the wireless message dated 6 August, 1975 addressed to the Advocate General wiith a copy to the Registrar of the High Cou~t amounted to an expression by the appellant of his inability to obey the order of the Court on account of the notification issued by the State Government published in the Official Gazette on 1 August, 1975. The High Court ordered the appellant to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt in exercise of the· powers of the Court under Article 215 of the Constitution read with section 10 of the Act. ~H The appellant appeared before the High Court on 13 Augus~, 1975. The case was adjourned to 14 August, 1975 to enable the fihng of a reply which was submitted in the form of an affidavit together with some enclosures. The appeJ.lant pleaded for the discharge of Rule • ./ J ARUN KSHETRAPAL V. REGISTRAR HIGH COURT (Ray, C.J.) 101 Nisi on the ground that no contempt of court was committed and that wireless message to the Advocate General did not constitute a contempt of court. The High Court by order dated 20 August, 1975 found the appellant guilty of contempt bX_holding that the appellant h11d sent the wireless message dated 6 August, 1975 without waiting for reply from the State Government regarding the clarification of its Notification. The appellant on' 6 August, 1975 referred to the Home Secretary for clarification of the noiification dated 1 August, 1975. The appellant sent a copy of the notification to the Advocate General. The appellant also directed the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur to produce the detenu befort: the Court. The detenu O.n, fact was produced before the High Court. All these features indicate that the appellant throughout acted in a careful and responsible manner. The reply of the Government to the clarification asked for by the appellant on 6 August, 1975 was received on 8 August, 1975, that is fo say two days after the wireless message had been sent to the Advocate General. The clarification message of, the Govi;:rnment reached the appellant in the afternoon of 8 August, 1975, viz., the date on which the detenu was to have been produced in court. The State Government in the note clarifying the position informed the appellant that in . case the appellant was_advised to produce the detenu before the High Court and if the High Court insisted on such production the High Court should be informed well before the date on which the detenu is to be produced by an affidavit sworn by an officer in charge that there is danger to public order if the detenu O.s produced. It appears that the appellant had acted just as the Government clarification suggested. The appellant gave the notification to the Advocate General because the latter did not have it and asked for it. The appellant asked for clarification from the State Government as to the notification because of the situation in which he was placed. The appellant sent instructlions1 to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur to produce the