JUDGMENT 1. THE petitioner is M/s. Bengal Coal Company Ltd. The Company has one colliery within the Asansol Police Station in the district of Bur-dwan. The petitioner alleges as follows :- 2. ON April 1, 1969, at about 8 A. M. some two hundred workmen of the colliery unlawfully and wrongfully confined Shri S.K. Mukherjee, Manager of the colliery, and Shri K.K. Kapila, deputy Superintendent. Information was lodged on behalf of the company with Asansol Police Station at about 10 a. M. about this unlawful confinement. Respondent No. 2, Indra Mohan karmakar a Sub-Inspector of Police, obtained a search warrant from the Sub-divisional Magistrate Asansol, on the basis of the said first information report and he returned to the police station with the search warrant at about 11-30 A. M. Respondent No. 2 with some armed constables came to the colliery for execution of the search warrant, but he failed or neglected to execute the search warrant. The persons, who were keeping the said officers under wrongful confinement, said that they would lift the confinement only if their leader one Rabin Chatterjee would permit such a release. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 took the confined officers and some of the demonstrators to the Asansol police station and there the said Rabin Chatterjee came at 5 P. M. and on his intervention the gherao was lifted and the confined officers were allowed to go. It is said that respondent No. 2 deliberately failed or neglected to execute the search warrant issued by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Asansol, and thereby committed contempt of his court. Then, on May 14. 1969, some workmen unlawfully and wrongfully confined Shri S. P. Gautam, Welfare officer of the colliery, at about 9-30 A. M. One B. P. Kavi on behalf of the colliery lodged an information about this wrongful confinement with the Asansol police station at 11-30 A. M., but the police took no action and directed Shri b. P. Kavi to move the Sub-divisional magistrate. Shri Kavi thereafter moved the Sub-divisional Magistrate, asansol, and at about 12 noon the sub-divisional Magistrate issued a search warrant under section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the rescue of the confined officer Shri S.P. Gautam and this search warrant was made over at the Asansol police station at 1-30 P. M. Respondent No. 1 who was the officer-in-charge of the Asansol police station at the relevant time, however, failed and or neglected to execute the search warrant. He reached the colliery only at 4 P. M. and found the said Shri Gautam still wrongfully confined; but he did not execute the search warrant or rescue Shri Gautam but contacted one rabin Chatterjee and waited till the said Rabin Chatterjee came and persuaded the waited till the said rabin Chatterjee came and persuaded the demonstrators to lift the gherao. The confined officer Shri Gautam was allowed to go only thereafter. Similarly, on June 16, 1969, at about 10 A.M. some workmen again unlawfully and wrongfully confined Shri N.N. Gautam, Manager, and the said Shri s. P. Gautam, Welfare Officer of the colliery. At about 12 noon Shri S. Sidhanta, Security Officer of the colliery, lodged an information at the Asansol Police Station about this wrongful confinement. Respondent No. 1, who was officer-in-charge of police station, took no action and directed Shri Sidhanta to move the Sub-divisional magistrate. Shri Sidhanta there-upon made an application before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, asansol, and obtained a search warrant under section 100 of the Code for the rescue of the confined officers at about 1-15 P. M. The search warrant was made over to the respondent No. 1 at the Asansol police station at about 1-30 P.M. but he failed or neglected to execute the search warrant. He arrived at the colliery only at about 4 P.M. and even then, he took no steps to execute the search warrant. He waited there till about 5-30 P. M. when the said Rabin chatterjee came to the colliery and on his intervention the demonstrators lifted the gherao and the confined officers were allowed to go. It is said that on both these occassions respondent no. 1 failed and/or neglected to execute the search warrant and thereby interfered with the course of justice and thus committed contempt of the court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, asansol. It is said that on both these occassions respondent no. 1 failed and/or neglected to execute the search warrant and thereby interfered with the course of justice and thus committed contempt of the court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, asansol. The learned Advocate General has appeared before us on behalf of both the alleged contemners and tenders unqualified apology on behalf of both. The respondents filed affidavit in answer to the Rule; but then, the learned Advocate General obtained our permission to withdraw those affidavits and the respondents have now filed fresh affidavits. The respondents have in these affidavits too tendered unqualified apology. 3. WE shall first deal with the case of respondent No. 2 Indra Mohan katrmakar. He is concerned in the incident which is alleged to have taken place on April 1, 1969. The learned advocate General concedes that at about 9-45 A. M. a written report was received at the Asansol police station informing the police about the alleged wrongful confinement. We find that respondent No. 2 approached the sub-divisional Magistrate, Asansol, on the basis of this written report for a search warrant for the rescue of the persons alleged to have been wrongfully confined and obtained a search warrant from the Sub-divisional Magistrate, asansol. He returned to the police station with the search warrant at 11-30 a. M. He then went to the colliery for execution of the search warrant. He has said in his affidavit that he executed the search warrant. He has said in his affidavit that he executed the search warrant and was able to rescue the officers at about 2-30 P. M. The colliery is some 5 miles from the thana. Respondent No. 2 did not take much time to reach the colliery, But it appears that thereafter he tried to persuade the demonstrators to lift the gherao and in this way, as he submits, some time was lost and then ultimately he was successful and the gherao was lifted when the confined officers were rescued. Respondent No. 2 did not take much time to reach the colliery, But it appears that thereafter he tried to persuade the demonstrators to lift the gherao and in this way, as he submits, some time was lost and then ultimately he was successful and the gherao was lifted when the confined officers were rescued. This statement appears to be somewhat contradictory to the assertions made in the petitioner's petition and the subsequent statements made in the affidavit of respondent No. 2 make it clear that the confined officers were not actually rescued in execution of the search warrant at 2-30 P. M. but the confined officers and some of the demonstrators were taken in the police van to the police station at Asansol and though respondent No. 2 says that he had no information if Rabin Chatterjee came to the police station at 5 P. M., it seems to us that really the matter ended only after that Rabin Chatterjee came to the police station and persuaded the demonstrators to leave. But, at any rate, we find that the respondent No. 2 succeeded in taking the confined officers to the police station at 2-30 P. M. and that was obviously in execution of the search warrant issued by the Magistrate. On the facts disclosed we are, therefore, not prepared to say that there was much of wilful disobedience or negligence on the part of the respondent no. 2 to execute the search warrant and it was he who obtained the search warrant and he managed to execute the search warrant, though not very quickly. Under the circumstances, we think that we should accept the unequal, it does not appear that he executed the lifted apology tendered by him and, in warrant. What he says is that he that view of the matter, we do not find, praised the demonstrators of the him guilty for having committed compose for his arriving there. Then he is tempt of court of the Magistrate at, silent. Then, he says that one Rabin asansol. The Rule against him should, Chatterjee came there and asked the therefore, be discharged demonstrators to lift the gherao and the gherao was lifted at 5-35 P. M. and 4. WE now come to the case of res- the officer concerned was automatically pendent No. 1 who was the officer-in at his liberty. Then, he says that one Rabin asansol. The Rule against him should, Chatterjee came there and asked the therefore, be discharged demonstrators to lift the gherao and the gherao was lifted at 5-35 P. M. and 4. WE now come to the case of res- the officer concerned was automatically pendent No. 1 who was the officer-in at his liberty. Similarly, about the charge, Asansol police station, both on incident on June 16, 1969, the unlawful may 14, and June 16, 1969. Firstly, confinement was started at 10 A. M. and about the incident on May 14, 1969, the police station was informed at wrongful confinement was started at about 12 noon and even on this date the about 9-30 A. M. Asansol police station police did not take any action on such was informed at about 11-30 A. M., but information but directed the Security no act: on was taken by the police on Officer to approach the Sub-divisional the basis of this report and the Security Magistrate. The Security Officer then officer of the petitioner company was filed an application before the sub-division referred to the Magistrate. The revisional Magistrate and a search warrant respondent No. 1 has said that he was not was issued by the Sub-divisional Magistrate present at the police station at the under section 100 of the Code and relevant time. We will thus skip over this was made over to the respondent this part of the incident. Then, the No. 1 at the Asansol police station at security Officer made an application about 1-30 P. M. Respondent No. 1 has before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, in his affidavit said that he got the asansol, and the Sub-divisional Magistrate search warrant at 3-15 P. M. But here issued a search warrant under again the relevant general diary entry section 100 of the Code and the is not produced before us. Be that as it petitioner's affidavit states that this was may, we find that respondent No. 1 made over to the Asansol police station at 1-30. Be that as it petitioner's affidavit states that this was may, we find that respondent No. 1 made over to the Asansol police station at 1-30. Respondent No. 1 has no doubt arrived at the colliery at 4 P. M. But here again we find that thereafter said that the search warrant was made respondent No. 1 did not do what was over to him at 3 P. M. ; but the relevant necessary for him to do for executing the general diary entry has not been search warrant (and) rescue the confined produced before us. Be that as it may, it officers. He has said in his affidavit that is not disputed that respondent No. 1 he apprised the demonstrators of the reached the colliery only at 4 P. M. purpose for his visit there. He has but even then, we are not satisfied that further said that he was asked by the after he reached the colliery he did demonstrators to wait until their leader what was necessary to be done for arrived and then he has said that Rabin executing the search warrant. He Chatterjee, the Union leader, arrived conceeds that when he reached the colliery, there and at his request the gherao was he found Shri S. P. Gautam lifted at 5-45 p.m. Thus both on May unlawfully confined by some demonstrators. He 14, 1969 and on June 16, 1969, Respondent was armed with a search warrant for dent No. 1 did not rescue the confined the rescue of the confined person, But officers in execution of the search warrant issued by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, but he waited for the leader of the demonstrators to arrive and to persuade the demonstrators to lift the gherao. The petitioner's affidavit states that it was respondent No. 1 who had contacted the said Rabin Chatterjee and with the request to come and rabin Chatterjee came and it was only at his intervention that the unlawful confinement came to its end. Thus it is patent that on both the occasions the confined officers were not rescued by the police officer in execution of the search warrant but they became free only after Rabin Chatterjee persuaded the demonstrators to lift the gherao. It was no part of the police man's duty to seek the assistance of the said Rabin chatterjee for executing the court's search warrant. It was no part of the police man's duty to seek the assistance of the said Rabin chatterjee for executing the court's search warrant. The execution of a court's search warrant is not dependent on the said Rabin Chatterjee's being able to persuade the demonstrators to lift the gherao. What Respondent No. 1 did was to abdicate his function in favour of the said Rabin Chatterjee and the confined officers were freed only because Rabin Chatterjee succeeded in persuading the demonstrators to lift the gherao. But the search warrant issued by the court was all this time left in cold storage. We are satisfied that respondent No. 1 neglected and failed to execute the search warrant issued by the Sub-divisional magistrate, Asansol, on May 14, 1969 and also on June 16, 1969 and thereby he interfered with the due course of justice and has committed contempt of the court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Asansol,. We have, therefore, no hesitation in finding Respondent no. 1 guilty of contempt of the court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Asansol. We have said that the learned Advocate General has tendered unqualified apology on behalf of respondent No. 1. So, the question remains if, in the circumstances of this case, we can accept this apology. We had the occasion to deal with a similar matter and we made our decision in that matter on june 10, 1969 and it is common knowledge that that decision had sufficient publicity. Respondent No. 1 had, therefore, full knowledge about the consequences of his inaction at least on june 16, 1969, and, in that view of the matter, we are not prepared to accept the apology tendered by and on his behalf in this matter. In the result, the Rule is discharged so far as Respondent No. 2 is concerned, but the Rule is made absolute so far as respondent No. 1 is concerned. He is found guilty for having committed contempt of the court of the sub-divisional Magistrate, Asansol, both on May 14, 1969, and also on June 16, 1969 and he is sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred).