B S DHALIWAL Vs. JOGA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against the order of the single Judge dated August 8, 1988, passed in C.O.C.P. No. 42 of 1988, convicting the appellant for commission of contempt of Court for disobeying order of the High Court in not releasing Sada Singh convict. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court.

(2.) Sada Singh filed Crl. Writ Petition No. 833 of 1987 against the State of Punjab and another for his pre-mature release. This petitioner was allowed on December 11, 1987 with the direction that he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. It was observed that the convict had been in jail for a period of about 14 years. As per allegations of the appellant copy of this order was received by him while he was working as Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala, on January 20, 1988. He contacted the Deputy Secretary to Government to know if further appeal had been filed in the Supreme Court or not. In reply to his letter be was informed that speciaL leave petition was filed in the Supreme Court. Such a petition was filed in the Supreme Court on January 28, 1988 and the Supreme Court passed interim order on February 20, 1988 staying operation of the order of the High Court in case the convict had not been released so far. Ultimately the Supreme Court on May 5, 1988 set aside the order of the High Court directing release of the convict and further directing the State to reconsider the case the release of the convict. Joga Singh son of Sada Singh filed an application under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act in this Court for taking action against the present appellant B.S. Dhaliwal who was Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala, for deliberate disobedience of the order passed by the High Court in not promptly releasing the convict. It was on this petition that the order under appeal was passed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that there was no wilful disobedience of the order of the High Court passed on December 11, 1987 on the part of the appellant. The appellant was not a party to the writ petition wherein such directions were given and he approached the Deputy Secretary to Government to know if any appeal against the order of the High Court was filed in the Supreme Court. Learned counsel has further argued that in those days under some fake certified copies of the orders of the Supreme Court/High Court detenus were being released by the Superintendents of Jails without verifying genuineness of such orders and the appellant bona fide contacted the Deputy Secretary to the Government to know if any appeal was to be filed against the order of the High Court and if some time was consumed in this process it cannot be held that the appellant deliberately disobeyed the order of the High Court. Learned counsel has further argued that in the peculiar circumstances of the case the unconditional apology tendered by the appellant before the Single Judge should have been accepted, more so when the order of the High Court, violation of which was being complained, had been finally set aside by the Supreme Court.