JUDGMENT Gyanendra Kumar, J. - By his judgment and order dated December 22, 1965 Sri D.P. Singh Magistrate 1st class Varanasi (Opp. Party No. 1) had convicted the applicant under Section 353 I.P.C. and had sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- or in default to undergo R.I. for six months. The applicant went up in appeal before the Sessions Judge Varanasi, who admitted the same and by his order dated December 29, 1965 stayed the realisation of fine. The stay order was produced by the applicants counsel before the Magistrate at 12.30 noon on December 31, 1965. In the meantime on December 30, 1965, the Magistrate had issued two simultaneous warrants against the applicant. One was for the realisation of the sum of Rs. 200/- by way of fine and the other a non-bailable warrant for the arrest and production of the applicant. According to the counter-affidavit filed by the Magistrate the Ahlmad had informed him on December 30, 1965 that the warrants had been issued. Yet when the Magistrate received the stay order on December 31, 1965 he passed only a two words routine order-"Seen, stay". When the Magistrate, according to his own showing, knew very well that the warrants had already been issued both for realisation of fine as well as arrest of the applicant, it was his duty to take extra care and caution in seeing that the stay order passed by the Sessions Judge was immediately complied with and the warrants withdrawn. 2. The Magistrate did not take care to take any effective step for immediate withdrawal of the warrants, nor did he send any special messenger or even a telegraphic or telephonic information to the Police Station Mirza Murad for that purpose. It is obvious that the Magistrate did not realise the importance of an order of stay passed by a superior Court. It has been emphasised by this Court time and again that the orders passed by superior courts have to be immediately complied and a litigant is entitled to instant relief granted to him. There is again nothing to show that the Magistrate had even asked the Reader Ahlmad, Court Moharrir or any body else to find out whether the stay order of the Sessions Judge had been obeyed and warrants withdrawn. There is again nothing to show that the Magistrate had even asked the Reader Ahlmad, Court Moharrir or any body else to find out whether the stay order of the Sessions Judge had been obeyed and warrants withdrawn. To say the least, the Magistrate had acted with utter carelessness and negligence in merely passing the above routine order, on receipt of the stay order from the Sessions Judge. 3. It is true that before a Government official can be convicted of contempt of court it has to be proved that the impugned disobedience was deliberate, wilful and or mischievous. Casual, careless or negligent disobedience would not amount to defiance of the order of the Court, so as to attract punitive provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. In the instant case, there is nothing to show that the Magistrate had deliberately or wilfully disobeyed the order of the Sessions Judge dated December 29, 1965. Therefore, inspite of the sheer negligence on his part, he cannot be held guilty of contempt of court of the Sessions Judge. 4. Coming to the case of Nawal Kishorei Lal, Criminal Ahlmad, the quantum of carelessness and negligence on his part is collossal. In his counter-affidavit and deposition recorded in this court Nawal Kishore Lal has admitted that both the warrants for realisation of fine and arrest of the applicant had been prepared on December 30, 1965 and had been handed over by him to the Court Moharrir that very day after 3 p.m. so he knew that the warrants could not have been despatched on December 30, 1965. He further admits that on December 31, 1965, the Court Reader had informed him at 12.30 noon that the order of the Sessions, Judge staying realisation of fine of the applicant had been received and at p.m. the Reader had actually passed on the papers to the Ahlmad. He further deposed that even after the receipt of the stay order from the Sessions Judge he did not ask the Court Moharrir to withhold the despatch of the warrant to the Thana. 5. In his deposition recorded in this Court, Nawal Kishore Lal had made some improvement on the original stand taken by him in his affidavit. He further deposed that even after the receipt of the stay order from the Sessions Judge he did not ask the Court Moharrir to withhold the despatch of the warrant to the Thana. 5. In his deposition recorded in this Court, Nawal Kishore Lal had made some improvement on the original stand taken by him in his affidavit. Now says that December 31, 1965 being the last day of the year, he was extremely busy preparing statements and returns and had thus completely forgotten about the receipt of the stay order from the Sessions Judge and that he realised this mistake at about 6 p.m. Nevertheless, according to his own admission, he did not bring it to the notice of the Magistrate or the Public Prosecutor incharge of the Police Office, from where orders are despatched to the different Thanas, nor did he take any instructions from them as to what steps had to be taken in view of the stay order received from the Sessions Court. He also did not care to inform the Station Officer concerned by telegrams, telephone or by special messenger that the warrants against the applicant should not be executed because of the stay order from the Sessions Judge. The result was that on account of the indifference and negligence and irresponsibility of the Ahlmad, the applicant was put under arrest, inspite of his having paid the full amount of fine and remained in improper detention for 20 hours, before he was ultimately released on January 3, 1966. Nevertheless, no mala fide or improper motive has been attributed even to the Ahlmad. Under the circumstances, the gross negligence, indifference and irresponsibility exhibited by the Ahlmad cannot constitute contempt of court, inasmuch as it is not possible to say that it was deliberate, wilful or mischievous. 6. As for the Station Officer and the Constable concerned (opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4), I am afraid, even a case of neglect had not been made out. They had received the two warrants from the Court of the Magistrate which they were bound to execute. The warrant for arrest was non-bailable and the one for realisation of fine did not indicate that the accused was not to be arrested if he paid the full amount of fine. The first warrant required the Police to arrest and produce the accused before the Magistrate concerned. The warrant for arrest was non-bailable and the one for realisation of fine did not indicate that the accused was not to be arrested if he paid the full amount of fine. The first warrant required the Police to arrest and produce the accused before the Magistrate concerned. Thus notwithstanding the provisions of Section 68, I.P.C. the Police Officials could not have refused to arrest the applicant, even on receipt of the full amount of fine. 7. In the result, I find that the applicant has failed to establish a case of contempt against the respondent. The notices issued against them are hereby discharged. However, in view of the neglect and want of sense of duty on the part of the Magistrate and the Ahlmad, I order that they shall pay up a sum of Rs. 100/- as costs to the petitioner within a period of one month.