Hari Lal Agrawal, J. By our order dated 21st September, 1977 we have already found and held Shri I.D. Ram, Additional Collector of Rohtas at Sasaram, guilty of 'Civil contempt' of this court and punished him with a tine of Rs.500/- to be paid within one month from that date and in default of the payment of the same, to undergo civil imprisonment for one week. Now we proceed to deliver a reasoned judgment for the above order. 2. The necessary facts for the present purpose may now be briefly narrated. The present proceeding arises out of a writ application (C.W.J.C. No 1182 of 1977) filed by the Pali Dehri Fishermen's Cooperative Society, the present petitioner, in this Court against the State of Bihar and others on 12th July 1977. The Additional Collector, Rohtas. Sri I.D. Ram, the contemner, was impleaded as respondent no.4 and the Collector of Rohtas as respondent no. 3. In the district of Rohtas, there is a jalkar in river Sone appertaining to Touzi No. 826 B stretched over several miles. The petitioner had been taking settlement of the fishery rights of this jalkar from time to time and had also taken settlement of the same for the preceding year namely 1976-77, at an annual rental of Rs. 54,000/ - The fishery rights in the said jalkar were settled with the petitioner society for the year 1977-78 also on the same annual rental of Rs. 54,000/- The petitioner was directed by the Additional collector (the contemner in the present case) by his letter dated 16th May 1977 to deposit a sum of Rs. 18.000/- as the first instalment within three days from the date of the said letter (notice) and the remaining two Instalments in the first week of August 1977. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner deposited Rs.10,000/- on 18.5.1977 and Rs.8,000/- on 24-5-1977. A provisional Parwana was then issued to the petitioner and it continued to remain in possession of the Touzi in question. In the Parwana that was issued to the petitioner, it was directed to deposit the second and third instalments of the residuary jama by 15-6-1977 and 30-6-1977 respectively with a condition that on failure to make the deposit, the settlement of the jalker in question would be cancelled and the fishery rights re-settled by auction, besides loss if any, would be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner committed defaults in depositing the instalment in spite of notice and the settlement was cancelled on 8-7-1977. The jalkar was re-settled with another Society known as Rohtas Saraiya Fishermen's Cooperative Society on 11-7-1977. The petitioner was informed of the order of cancellation through the circle officer, Dehri by his memo dated 9-7-1977. The petitioner therefore filed the aforesaid writ application in this court on 12th July, 1977 challenging the aforesaid order of cancellation, inter alia, on the ground that it was entitled to deposit the instalments in question by the first week of August, 1977, as communicated to it earlier, and the Collector of Rohtas was not the competent authority to cancel the settlement. 3. The writ application was placed for admission before us on 14-7-1977 and after its admission, we passed an order of interim stay in presence of the counsel for the State in the following terms "There will be interim stay of the settlement with the petitioner if he deposits a sum of Rs. 18,000/- within a week in this Court to the credit of Additional Collector Rohtas, respondent no.4. Let separate notice issue in the stay matter. Rule is made returnable within two weeks." The above order of interim stay along with a copy of the petition was forwarded to the Collector of Rohtas for information by special messenger the same day, i.e. 14.7.1977 at the Cost of the petitioner for his information and guidance and for immediate communication to all concerned. On 22.7.1977, a petition was filed by the petitioner alleging interference by the contemner in exercise of the fishery rights by the petitioner in spite of service of the order of stay passed by this Court and showing disrespect to the order of this Court. I would do better to state some of the allegations made in that petition as it is on the basis of that petition that the present proceeding was initiated. On the 8th of July 1977, the Additional Collector is proposed before the Collector that in as much as the settlement in favour of the petitioner had been cancelled on its failure to deposit the remaining two instalments and since the petitioner was in possession of the Jalkar and had already collected fishes, the amount of the first instalment already deposited by it should be forfeited and a fresh auction be held for re-settlement of the Jalkar. The Collector approved of the proposal and accordingly, special force with a Magistrate was deputed to dispossess the petitioner so that it did not do any further fishing. As already stated earlier, the Jalkar in question was settled with another society. It has been stated in this application that the order of interim stay dated 14.7.1977 passed by this Court was communicated the sane day through a special messenger to the Collector and the Additional Collector and served on the next day, i.e. 15.7.1977 at Sasaram. But in as much as no action was taken by them and the petitioner "was held at bay against carrying on the fishing operation in the fishery", the Secretary of the petitioner society filed a written representation before the Additional Collector on 16.7.1977, but he is said to have twitted at him and told that" nothing would come out of all these (ye sab karane se kuch nahin hoga). The petitioner deposited the sum of Rs.18,000/- in pursuance of the order of this court dated 14.7.1977 on 18.7.1977 in this court and filed the chalan along with a petition before the Additional Collector on the same day. After glancing through the same, the Additional Collector returned the papers to the Secretary of the petitioner who then sent the same by registered post to the Additional Collector on the same day and approached him the same day to inform that the papers had been posted to his address and requested him not to cause obstruction any longer in carrying on the fishing operation and to withdraw police force and the illegal restriction imposed by him. A copy of the petition was again handed over along with the certificate of the petitioner's advocate at 5 P.M. The Additional Collector is then said to have stated that there was no use going to him (Abhi app ghumiye, hamare yehan ane se koi faida nahin....Main kisi bhi sart par kisi bhi Court adesh ko nahin manuga). An urgent meeting of the Executive Committee of the Society was hurriedly convened and in pursuance of its resolution, the Secretary of the petitioner society again saw the Additional Collector at 11 A. M. on the 19th July to request him to desist from such acts. An urgent meeting of the Executive Committee of the Society was hurriedly convened and in pursuance of its resolution, the Secretary of the petitioner society again saw the Additional Collector at 11 A. M. on the 19th July to request him to desist from such acts. It is said that the Additional Collector again observed on this occasion "Chahe kisi bhi court ka asthagan adesh ho main nahin manuga chahe jo ho main mukadma lane ko taiyar hoon. aapko jo samgh men aye waisa karen", The Secretary of the petitioner society then filed another representation on 19th July before the Additional Collector. A copy of that representation was also filed in the office of the Collector which was acknowledged by the Peshkar stating all these facts. After having made all efforts with the local officer at Sasaram, the petitioner, as stated above, filed a petition on 22nd July 1977 in this Court under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a prayer for issuance of a direction to the Collector of Rohtas to "forthwith withdraw the police force" and a further direction to the Additional Collector" to refrain from interfering either personally or through his agents and subordinates, any longer with the fishing and collection of spawna "in the said Touzi No. 826 B or any other appropriate order, direction or process against them." It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the Additional Collector, having committed gross contempt of this Court, was liable to be suitably dealt with for his contumacity. 4. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the State on the said petition this Court issued a fresh direction to the Collector and the Additional Collector "to withdraw the police force and not to interfere in the matter of fishing and collecting spawn in river Sone, Tauzi No. 826 B........pending final hearing of the stay matter by this Court". A separate notice was also issued to Sri I.D. Ram the Additional Collector." to show cause as to why he should not be proceeded against for contempt of Court". He was also directed to file his show cause on 29th July, 1977. This petition was registered as M.J.C. No. 144 of 1977, giving rise to the present proceeding. 5. A separate notice was also issued to Sri I.D. Ram the Additional Collector." to show cause as to why he should not be proceeded against for contempt of Court". He was also directed to file his show cause on 29th July, 1977. This petition was registered as M.J.C. No. 144 of 1977, giving rise to the present proceeding. 5. The above order passed by this Court was again forwarded through a special messenger to the Collector of Rohtas, Sasaram, for his information and immediate communication to all concerned for their guidance and necessary action. The notice was duly served and in obedience there to the contemner personally appeared in Court on the 29th July, 1977 and filed his show cause controverting some of the allegations made by the petitioner against him. In his show cause, he completely denied the various utterance attributed to him by the petitioner. He stated that legal opinion was taken from the Government Pleader of Rohtas with respect to the interim order dated 14th of July 1977 passed by this Court, according to which the order passed by this court was conditional in nature and the order of stay was to be effective only on the petitioner depositing the sum of Rs. 18000/- and, accordingly, he had advised the petitioner's secretary to first deposit the said amount in this Court but the petitioner's secretary had been insisting all the time that "the Jalkar in question be handed over to him without payment of Rs. 18,000/-. He pleaded ignorance of the subsequent order dated 22nd July, 1977 passed by this Court till that time. He, however, gave an undertaking "to deliver the possession over the said Jalkar on return to Head quarter "in compliance of the order of this Court. He further pleaded that" Laches if any has not been deliberate, intentional and mala fide" and expressed regrets and offered unqualified apology. In view of the denial of all the allegations made by the petitioner against the contemner, which were prima facie very serious, it was decided by us that the matter should be heard and both parties allowed to substantiate their respective cases by proper evidence. 6. A supplementary and detailed show cause was then filed on 3.8.1977 by the contemner. In view of the denial of all the allegations made by the petitioner against the contemner, which were prima facie very serious, it was decided by us that the matter should be heard and both parties allowed to substantiate their respective cases by proper evidence. 6. A supplementary and detailed show cause was then filed on 3.8.1977 by the contemner. In paragraph 9 of this show cause, it had been admitted that the petitioner filed a petition before the contemner on 18.7.1977 in late hours along with a chalan showing deposit of the sum of Rs. 18,000/- in this Court and prayed for the stay of the cancellation order. The contemner then thought that notwithstanding the deposit of Rs. I8,000/- a separate order of stay from this Hon'ble Court should follow. This order of this Hon'ble Court was not fully understood by this deponent.........and hence there was some delay in implementing the same...and the same was carried out on 29.7.77 when the deponent went back from Patna". In paragraph 11, the contemner also admitted the receipt of another petition filed by the petitioner on the 19th of July 1977. In substance, the defence of the contemner is a denial of the various utterances attributed to him, which have already been referred to earlier while dealing with the petition filed by the petitioner, and further that be committed a mistake In correctly appreciating and understanding the order of stay passed by this court and had no intention to flout the same. On these statements, it was prayed on his behalf that the rule of contempt issued against him be discharged. 7. According to the allegations made the petitioner is said to have committed the following acts of contempt: (i) On 15.7.1977 on receipt of the order of interim stay passed by this Court, he took no action in the matter and thereby disobeyed the order of this Court: (ii) On 16.7.1977, When a written representation was filed before the contemner, he said that nothing would come out of all these: (iii) On 18.7.1977. When the contemner was apprised of the deposit of Rs. When the contemner was apprised of the deposit of Rs. 18,000/- by a petition accompanied with the chalan in question, after going through the same he refused to receive it and when a copy of the same again handed over to him after the same having been sent by registered post, he again said that the petitioner's Secretary should go around and there was no use coming to him. (iv) On 19.7.1977, when the petitioner's Secretary went to see the contemner. he again observed that whatever be the consequence, he was prepared to fight the litigation and the petitioner's secretary was free to Act, as he thought proper. 8. The contemner as already stated has denied all the utterances attributed to him on all the three occasions noted above. He has however, admitted that the petitioner's Secretary had gone to him on all the dates i.e. 16th, 18th and 19th July 1977. According to both his show cause, his plea with respect to the alleged disobedience in carrying out the order of this Court, in essence, as already stated above, is that he thought that the stay order was conditional which was to be effective only on the petitioner's depositing the amount of Rs. 18,000/-. in the supplementary show cause, a further plea has been taken by him that he had advised the petitioner's Secretary not only to deposit the sum of Rs. 18,000/- in terms of the order of interim stay, but to obtain a separate order in the light of the order dated 14.7.1977, in as much as he thought that on deposit of the said amount, a separate order of stay from this court would follow. 9. Being conscious of the fact that the extraordinary power to punish contempt has to be exercised with great forbearance but at the Same time where the public interest demands it, the court will not shirk from exercising it and imposing punishment to vindicate the dignity of the court and proper administration of justice, I now proceed to examine the matter in its proper circumspection in the light of the evidence produced by the parties. 10. The petitioner examined in all eight witnesses, six of them being formal in nature, who came only to prove certain documents, the material witnesses are only two, namely, the Secretary of the petitioner, Ramrup Choudhary (P.W. 5) and his brother Beslal Choudhary (P.W. 6). 10. The petitioner examined in all eight witnesses, six of them being formal in nature, who came only to prove certain documents, the material witnesses are only two, namely, the Secretary of the petitioner, Ramrup Choudhary (P.W. 5) and his brother Beslal Choudhary (P.W. 6). The contemner also examined five witnesses. Besides the oral evidence, the parties also exhibited various documents. Mahindra Kumar Sinha (P.W.1), the dealing assistant and incharge of the writ application in question, M. H. Ansari (P.W. 2) and Baidyanath Prasad (P.W.7) Section Officer, were examined to prove the despatch of the order of interim stay dated 14.7.1977 by a special messenger on the same day and also that of the second order dated 22.7.1977. They proved the relevant office notes to that effect in the order sheet of the writ case, namely, Exts. 1, 2 and 3 series and Ext. 4 the Despatch Register. The service of the stay orders passed by this Court is, however, not under challenge. Muna Rai (P.W. 8) is the Peon who had gone to Sasaram as the special messenger to serve the order of interim stay and served it in the office of the Collector of Rohtas on the 15th July, 1977. Rajeshwar Prasad (P.W. 3) is another assistant of this Court who has despatched the order dated 22.7.1977 to the Collector of Rohtas through a special messenger, Mathura Ram (P.W.5), who had delivered the same at the residence of the Collector of Rohtas at Sasaram. Ramrup Choudhary (P.W. 5) is the Secretary of the petitioner Co-operative Society. He stated that when no action was taken by Collector of Rohtas after the service of the copy of the order of stay on 15.7.1977, on the next day, i.e., 16.7.1977, he along with Beslal Choudhary (P.W, 6), who is admittedly not only his brother but also a member of the petitioner society, went to the Additional Collector of Rohtas at Sasaram at about 11.30 A.M. and filed a petition (Ext 5) before him which he refused to receive. It is addressed to the Collector of Rohtas and states that the orders dated 8th and 9th July 1977 passed by him having been stated by this Court, the petitioner was greatly suffering on account of the continuance of the order of cancellation of the settlement. He further stated that while refusing to receive the application. It is addressed to the Collector of Rohtas and states that the orders dated 8th and 9th July 1977 passed by him having been stated by this Court, the petitioner was greatly suffering on account of the continuance of the order of cancellation of the settlement. He further stated that while refusing to receive the application. the contemner told that nothing would happen by all these, When no action was taken even on 16.7.1977, P.W. 5 came to Patna on 17.7.1977 and deposited the sum of Rs. 18,000/- on 18.7.1977 under a chalan (Ext. 6) and got a petition drafted and also obtained a certificate from his advocate to the effect that stay had been granted in the case and money had been deposited. He then rushed to Sasaram and along with P.W. 6 went to the Additional Collector as the Collector was not available at that time and showed to the contemner the duplicate copy of the chalan and the lawyer's certificate, but the contemner refused to receive them, He then sent a copy of the petition along with the lawyer's certificate under registered A/D covers to the Collector and the Additional Collector, Sasaram and again came to the contemner at about 5 P.M. and handed over to him a copy of the petition (Ext. 8) along with a copy of the lawyer's certificate (Ext. 8/1), telling him that he already sent copies there of by registered post. The contemner then accepted the petition and after going through the contents of the petition, he uttered "Abhi aap Ghumiye mai kisi bhi shart par kisi bhi Court ke adesh ko nahi manuga". In this petition the contemner was requested "to obey the order of the High Court and save the petitioner society from a loss of Rs.15,000/- per day". The petitioner also stated in this petition that the Additional Collector was committing contempt of this Court. P.W. 5 further stated that in spite of all these, no action was taken in the matter and, accordingly, an emergent meeting of the society was convened on the 18th night where it was decided that P.Ws. 5 and 6 should again meet the Additional Collector the next day. P.W. 5 further stated that in spite of all these, no action was taken in the matter and, accordingly, an emergent meeting of the society was convened on the 18th night where it was decided that P.Ws. 5 and 6 should again meet the Additional Collector the next day. Accordingly, P.W. 5 along with P.W. 6 went to meet the contemner at 11 A. M. on the 19th July and requested him to withdraw the police force which was obstructing in fishing by the Society and to release the two persons of the Society who were taken Into custody earlier. The Additional Collector repeated the same words which he had uttered the previous evening and further added that he would fight the case and that P.W. 5 may go and do whatever he liked. P.W. 5 then got another petition prepared, narrating an the events and containing the statements of the contemner and again went to his office to file the petition, but he being not there, he went to him on the 19th July and wanted to file the petition before him, but he did not receive it. The said petition was then filed by him in his office (a copy of which has been marked Ext. 9.) Ext. 9, which is dated 19th July 1977 and is addressed to the Additional Collector, a document which is contemporaneous in nature, states all the events and the statements made by the contemner, already referred to earlier, and supports the case of the petitioner. P.W.5 then came to Patna on the 21st July and filed the petition in question, on which the present proceeding was drawn on the 22nd July 1977. P.W. 5 further stated that in spite of service of the order passed on the 22nd July by this Court, the police force etc. was not withdrawn and the petitioner was not allowed to do fishing till the 29th July 1977. In his cross-examination P.W. 5 admitted that he and his brother (P.W. 6) constitute a joint Hindu family and that when they had gone to the Additional Collector on the 16th, 18th and 19th July, 1977, no one else was in his office on all the three occasions. In his cross-examination P.W. 5 admitted that he and his brother (P.W. 6) constitute a joint Hindu family and that when they had gone to the Additional Collector on the 16th, 18th and 19th July, 1977, no one else was in his office on all the three occasions. He, however, admitted that the two persons who were taken into custody were so taken on the 8th or 9th July, and not after the order of stay passed by this Court. A suggestion was given to him in his cross examination that on 16th July, 1977, the Additional Collector had told him that the cancellation of the settlement of the Jalkar would be stayed only after he would deposit Rs. 18,000/-. 11. Beslal Choudhary (P.W. 6) who, as already stated earlier, is a brother of P.W. 5 and had accompanied him on all the relevant dates when P.W. 5 had gone to the office of the Additional Collector, was examined to corroborate P.W. 5. He is a member of the executive committee of the petitioner Society. His evidence is on the same line as that of P.W. 5 and fully corroborates and supports him. I, therefore, do not think it necessary to deal with the evidence of this witness in any detail. There is no contradiction in his evidence with respect to the relevant matters worth mentioning. He denied all the suggestions thrown to him in his cross-examination that on 18th July, 1977, when he along with P.W.5 had gone to the Additional Collector in the evening, some clerks of his office and even some outsiders were present in that room, or at that time some whose cases were being heard by the Additional Collector and their lawyers were present in that room. A definite suggestion was thrown to this witness in his cross examination which, however, he denied, that on the 16th July 1977, when they had gone to the room of the Additional Collector. Sri B.S. Verma, Additional District Magistrate (Ceiling), Rohtas, was present there. It may be stated that this suggestion that on the 18th July 1977, some litigants as well as their lawyers, besides clerks, were present with the Additional Collector, was not given to P.W. 5. 12. Sri B.S. Verma, Additional District Magistrate (Ceiling), Rohtas, was present there. It may be stated that this suggestion that on the 18th July 1977, some litigants as well as their lawyers, besides clerks, were present with the Additional Collector, was not given to P.W. 5. 12. Some other documents have also been exhibited on behalf of the petitioner, but in as much as they have no bearing on the matter in question, it is not necessary to deal with them. 13. Now I proceed to consider the evidence adduced on behalf of the contemner. The contemner, as already stated earlier, has examined five witnesses. Two of them, namely D.Ws. 1 and 2 are his Bench clerks and office clerks respectively. D.Ws. 3 and 4 are two outsiders who were examined as so-called independent witnesses and D.W. 5 is an Additional Collector (Ceiling) of the same place. Through the mouth of these witnesses, the defence has endeavoured to establish that P.W. 6 was not accompaning P.W.5 and the contemner did not utter any derogatory and contumacious words against the dignity of this Courts or the Courts in general. On the first occasion, i.e., 16th July 1977, all the above five witnesses (D.Ws. 1 to 5) are said to be present when P.W. 5 had gone with his lawyer. According to the evidence of these witnesses, when the lawyer requested the contemner that in view of the stay order in question, the petitioner should be permitted to start fishing and it should be given possession of the Jalkar, the contemner asked him to first deposit the sum of Rs. 18,000/-. According to the consistent evidence of these witnesses, the contemner gave P.W. 5 an assurance that he should give possession on the money being deposited in as much as the stay order was conditional. On the 18th July 1977 were present D.Ws. 1 to 4, and according to their evidence, P.W.5 had come only at about 5 P.M. and not earlier, as claimed by him (P.W. 5). There is nothing worth mentioning the general statements of these witnesses except that of D.W. 2. From his mouth the further defence set up the supplementary show cause was stated, namely, that he (the contemner) was under the impression that even after deposit of Rs.18.000/-, the High Court would issue a separate order of stay. There is nothing worth mentioning the general statements of these witnesses except that of D.W. 2. From his mouth the further defence set up the supplementary show cause was stated, namely, that he (the contemner) was under the impression that even after deposit of Rs.18.000/-, the High Court would issue a separate order of stay. Accordingly, D.W. 2 stated that the contemner after asking P.W.5 to first deposit the money further said "Uske bad adesh ane par dekha Jayega". This statement of D.W. 2 can hardly be accepted as it is a belaboured plea which was perhaps thought to be set up as a matter of necessity to cover the inaction even after the deposit of Rs. 18,000/-. This witness admitted that the registered cover despatched by P.W. 5 was received in the office sometime afterwards. D.W. 3 Ganga Dayal Singh had apparently no occasion to go to the Additional Collector and the ground that he gives for his presence is that he had gone there to show him the copy of a judgment of a probate case pending in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Arrah, on the direction of the Collector which was decided on 28.6.1977. Admittedly, he was not a party to the proceeding and his evidence does not inspire any confidence. Badri Narain Choudhary (D.W. 4) who was also present on the 16th July 1977 at the relevant time, is inimically disposed towards the petitioner and P.W. 5 admitted that he was a competitor of the petitioner in the settlement of the Jalkar in question and had already served a notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure impleading the petitioner as a party in a suit. For the occurrence of the 19th July 1977 there are only two witnesses, namely D.Ws. 1 and 3. The witnesses of the contemner admit the fact of the coming of P.W. 5 on all the three occasions and also that he and his lawyer intimated the contemner of the passing of the stay order, the tiling of the petition along with the Chalan and the certificate of the lawyer and the attitude of the contemner In not giving effect to the stay order in question on some or the other plea, a case which the petitioner purported to establish. 14. This is all the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the contemner. 14. This is all the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the contemner. Only two documents have been filed on his behalf, namely, a copy of the objection petition filed by the petitioner society to the agreement In question (Ext. B. which is not relevant for the present purpose, and two signatures (Exts. A and A)1) of P.W. 5 on the petition dated 18.7.1977 and the endorsement made by the Additional Collector on the said petition (Ext. 8) 15. Since the allegations by the petitioner attracted the mischief of 'civil' as well as criminal contempt, as defined, in section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, we thought it desirable to examine the contemner as well as to explain the 'circumstances appearing in the evidence produced by the petitioner against him, immediately after the close of the petitione’s case, In answer to a question as to whether he had deliberately disobeyed the stay Older of this Court, he said that after service of the stay order on the Collector of Rohtas on 16th July, 1977, opinion of the Government Pleader Sasaram, was obtained and it was decided that stay order "could be effective only after a sum of Rs.18,000/- was deposited, and, since that had not been deposited by that date, he thought that the stay order was not operative and accordingly, no action was taken by him", In answer to another question that why the order was not stayed even when he was approached after the amount was deposited, he replied that" on the 18th of July 1977, when I was approached by Ramrup Choudhary and Beslal Choudhary, I asked them to approach the District Magistrate as the stay order was issued to him. I did not think it proper to take any action in the matter unless he directed me to do something. Their was some delay as the District Magistrate was not present at Sasaram on the 18th of July 1977......" 16. I would first deal with the case of the petitioner that the contemner made contumacious statements tending to lower the dignity of this Court, in particular, and the Courts, in general, when P.W. 5 went to him on 16th, 18th and 19th July 1977. The relevant utterances have already been quoted earlier and need not be repeated again. Suffice it to say that if the allegation is accepted. The relevant utterances have already been quoted earlier and need not be repeated again. Suffice it to say that if the allegation is accepted. It would certainly amount to be a gross contempt, and as defined in the new Act, a "criminal contempt". In support of this case, there are only two witnesses, namely Ramrup Choudhary (P.W. 5) and Beslal Choudhary (P.W. 6). The lawyer of the petitioner, Sri Amir Chand Ram, who accompanied P.W. 5 on the 16th July 1977, has, however, not been examined. It is no doubt true that P.W. 5 is corroborated by P.W. 6. P.W. 6 is no body else than the own brother of P.W. 5 and is joint with him. All the witnesses who have been examined on behalf of the contemner and claimed to be present at the relevant time have refuted the allegation of the petitioner that the contemner made any utterance against the dignity of any court. Although the evidence of Ganga Dayal Singh (D.W. 3) and Badri Narain Choudhary (D.W. 4) does not inspire any confidence, the evidence of Sri Bimal Kishore Sahay Verma (D.W.5), Additional Collector (Ceiling), who was there with the contemner on the 16th July 1977, cannot be altogether rejected. But this witness was present only on the 16th of July, and not on the subsequent days, namely 18th and 19th July 1977. D.W.1, the Bench clerk, and D.W. 2, the office assistant of the contemner, however, claimed to be present on both these occasions as well and they have deposed that the contemner did not utter the words attributed to him. These two witnesses also cannot be said to be altogether independent as they are office clerks working under the control of the contemner. The result is that there is no independent witness on whose evidence implicit reliance can be placed and a concluded finding be recorded either this away or that way. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, vehemently argued that the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner must be given preference in as much as the conduct and defiant attitude of the contemner was an index of his mood. Strong reliance was placed on a contemporaneous documents namely the petition filed on the 19th July 1977 (Ext. 9), which recorded all the relevant facts which were not controverted by the contemner. Strong reliance was placed on a contemporaneous documents namely the petition filed on the 19th July 1977 (Ext. 9), which recorded all the relevant facts which were not controverted by the contemner. There may be force in this contention, but In as much as the allegation against the contemner being serious in nature and he being a responsible Government officer, this power which is to be exercised with scrupulous care and only when the case is clear and beyond reasonable doubt, I do not think that the evidence on the record is sufficient enough to punish the contemner for the "criminal contempt" of this Court. I would therefore, give him benefit of doubt on this score. 17. The position, however, with respect to the "wilful disobedience" of the order of ad-interim stay granted by this court on the 14th July, 1977, is quite different. Admittedly, the order was not given effect to until 29th July, 1977. It has been seen that the contemner by his order dated 8.7.1977 had proposed cancellation of the settlement of the Jalker in question in favour of the petitioner and its fresh settlement, which was approved by the Collector, and a special force with a Magistrate was directed to be deputed to dispossess the petitioner to prevent it from any further fishing (vide Annexure 6 to the writ application) and it is not disputed that deputation of police force was made and the petitioner was not permitted to do fishing, so much so that the contemner in his order dated 11.7.1977 (vide Annexure 8 to the writ application) has said that the petitioner had already been dispossessed from the Jalkar in question. I have pointedly stated these facts as some argument was advanced by the learned Standing Counsel no. IV that petitioner remained always in possession of the Jalkar in question and, therefore, there was no disobedience. By the order dated 14.7.1977 passed by this court, the cancellation of the settlement of this Jalkar in question with the petitioner society was stayed and apparently as a result of the stay of the order of cancellation of the settlement, the settlement of the Jalkar in question in favour of the petitioner stood restored or reviewed which entitled it to continue fishing operation. The contemner was a party to the writ application and the order of stay was duly served on him on the 16th July 1977. The contemner was a party to the writ application and the order of stay was duly served on him on the 16th July 1977. It is not the case of the contemner that he did not become aware of the order of this court. His plea however is that the Government Pleader, Sasaram, opined that the order was conditional and would be operative and effective only on the petitioner's depositing the sum of Rs.18,000/- and not before. The opinion of the Government Pleader has not been produced by the contemner. The contemner is a sufficiently senior responsible officer of the State Government and reading the order in question, there does not appear to be any scope for the contention that the order of stay passed by this Court was conditional in nature and was not to be given effect to at once. The contemner could seek clarification if the order was in uncertain terms, but if its meaning was plain, there was no scope for any construction. It was observed by Ameer Ali, J. in the case of All India Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Sardar Singh (A.I.R. 1937 Calcutta 601), with which I respectfully agree, that where a contemner acts upon the advice, he takes the risk and that would only affect the question of punishment but not of liability. In the case of Debarata Bandopadhyay and others Vs. The Stare of West Bengal and others (A.I.R. 1969 Supreme Court 189), it was observed by the Chief Justice Hidayatullah that order of stay, bail, injunction received from superior court must receive close and prompt attention and unnecessary delay In despatching or dealing with them may well furnish grounds for an inference that it was due to a natural disinclination to deal with the matter born of indifference and sometimes even of contumaciousness. 18. In any view of the matter, even assuming that the disobedience of the order of this Court by the contemner was un-Intentional, and so to say, bona fide and it was not to be given effect to until the petitioner had deposited Rs.18,000/-, there could be no justification whatsoever for not giving effect to this order when the petitioner deposited the amount and informed the contemner on the 18th July 1977 of this fact. The contemner himself in his first show cause as well as his first witness, namely his Beneh clerk (D.W. 1), in his evidence have stated that when P.W. 5 requested the Additional Collector that he should be given possession, he asked him to go and deposit the money and assured that he would give possession to them on the money being deposited. The events that followed on the 18th July 1977 as narrated by P.Ws. 5and 6 are telling on the conduct of the contemner that he was determined not to give effect to the order of stay passed by this Court. The evidence of P.W. 5 is that after depositing the sum of Rs. 18,000/- on 18.7.1977 in this Court, he obtained a certificate from his advocate and also got a petition ready stating the facts and rushed to Sasaram and went to the contemner and showed him the relevant chalan and wanted to file the petition, but he would not receive them. He was, therefore, obliged to go to a post office at Dehri-on-Sone and sent a copy of the petition along with the lawyer's certificate by registered A/D cover to the Collector and the Additional Collector. P.W. 5 then came to the Additional Collector and informed him that he had already sent copy of the petition by registered post, and only then the contemner accepted the petition. But neither he carried out the direction of this Court nor honoured his own assurance that he held out to P.W. 5 on the 16th July 1977, already referred to above, and the police force remained posted prohibiting petitioner society from starting the fishing operation for days together untill the rule of contempt was issued by this Court and the contemner appeared on the 29th July 1977 and went back there after to Sasaram after properly realising the peril to which he had exposed himself. The above events and the circumstances which have been brought on the record by the evidence of the witnesses are not very much in controversy and do establish beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt that the contemner had wilfully disobeyed the order of interim stay passed by this Court on the 14th July 1977 and that he was not prepared to give effect to the order of stay in question. The plea that he thought that after the amount in question was deposited a fresh order of stay would be issued by this Court, is only a pretext and belated plea and must be rejected; being wholly unwarranted. The contemner who is occupying the rank of an Additional Collector and is holding courts and himself passing judicial and quasi-judicial orders, was not expected to raise such a frivolous plea as a cover for his disobedience of this Court's order. In his own statement that he made before us on 2.9.1977, he did not advance this plea. It has already been seen that the opinion of the Government Pleader said to be taken in the matter was that the order of stay I was to be effective after the sum of Rs. 10,000/-was deposited. 19. In this view of the matter, there is no point in recording any finding as to whether P.W. 5 had gone along or with P.W. 6 to see the contemner, or whether D.Ws. 1, 2, 3, and 4 were present on those occasions. The hard fact remains that the order passed by this Court was not given effect to for practically two weeks inspite of repeated approaches and request of P.W. 5, a fact which is not disputed and for that the contemner could not give any justifiable explanation. I would, accordingly, hold him guilty of wilful disobedience of the said order passed by this court and make the rule absolute. 20. Having come to the conclusion that the contemner was guilty of "civil contempt" of this Court, the question arose as to what punishment should be awarded to him. Under section 12 of the contempt of Court Act, a contempt of Court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine up to Rs.2,000/-or with both. It was contended on behalf of the contemner by the learned standing counsel no. IV that the contenmer should be discharged by administering a severe warning or the punishment awarded, if any may be remitted on accepting his apology. It was contended on behalf of the contemner by the learned standing counsel no. IV that the contenmer should be discharged by administering a severe warning or the punishment awarded, if any may be remitted on accepting his apology. In my view, it would not have been appropriate on the facts of the present case to accede to either of the requests of the Standing Counsel No. IV and in the interest of the administration of justice, he should not have been permitted to get away on mere tender of the apology as the allegation against the contemner were too serious and instances of disobedience of the orders of this Court are now too frequent. Commission of contempt of Court by a responsible Government officer, such as an Additional Collector, is much more reprehensible then the commission of contempt of court by an ordinary person as he is an educated person and being a public servant should have known his duties. If he does the contempt intentionally, his conduct is very much open to objection. The tender of apology was not enough to purge the contemner of his guilt. It was in these circumstances that we passed the order dated the 21st September, 1977, punishing the contemner to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-witbin one month from the date of that order and in default of the payment of the same, to undergo civil imprisonment for one week. I agree Contemner punished.