C. P. SEN, J. ( 1 ) BY this order Misc. Cr. Case No. 1434 of 1983 between the same parties is also disposed of. These are applications under section 2 (3) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for taking action for contempt. ( 2 ) AT the relevant time the applicant was posted as Civil Judge. Class II and Judicial Magistrate First Class at Sehore and he was doing the work of mobile Magistrate. On 23/9/1982 at the time of checking non-applicants jeep No. MPH 879 it was challalled under sections 112, 3/112 and 22/112 of the Motor Vehicles Act in Criminal Case No. 498 of 1982 and produced before the mobile court presided over by the applicant. The non applicant pleaded guilty and a fine of Rs. 100/-was imposed which he paid and then he was allowed to go. According to the applicant the non-applicant was directed to produce his driving licence and registration certificate on the next day but he failed to appear nor sent any intimation as directed. So dt. 24. 9. 1982 non-bailable warrants of arrest was issued against him and sent to Supdt. Of Police, Bhopal for execution, as there was apprehension that non-applicant may abscond. A copy was also sent to the R. T. O. , Bhopal. However, on 18/10/1982 the non-applicant himself appeared in the Court and he was released on bail and the warrant of arrest issued was recalled. A Hamdast of the order was given t6 the non-applicant. However, the non-applicant filed Criminal Revision No. 38 of 1982 on 22/10/1982 before the Sessions Judge challenging the further proceedings against the non-applicant after 23/9/1982. Thereafter the non-applicant sent a complaint to the Chief Justice the Registrar and the Law Secretary complaining about the harassment by the applicant with a copy to the Sessions Judge. He again sent a reminder on 19/12/1982. By order dated 25/2/1982 the Sessions Judge quashed the order dated 24/9/1982 as being illegal and without jurisdiction. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the applicant, the allegations made in the memo of revision and the complaints to the Chief Justice are only to scandalize the Court and thereby the non applicant has committed gross contempt of the Court. On the basis of the applicant's application dated 5/5/1983 Misc. Cr. Case No. 1234 of 1983 was registered and notice issued to the contemnor. On the basis of the applicant's application dated 5/5/1983 Misc. Cr. Case No. 1234 of 1983 was registered and notice issued to the contemnor. The applicant also sent another application dated 19/4/1983, through the District and Sessions Judge, Sehore and on the basis of. the subsequent application Misc. Cr. Case No. 1434 of 1983 was registered and notice issued to the contemnor, i. e. the non-applicant. It was further alleged that on 28/2/1983 after the order of the Sessions Judge in revision, the non-applicant served a registered notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the applicant claiming Rs. 5620/-as damages. The non- applicant also sent an application to the Chief Justice on the same day for permission to prosecute he applicant under section 500, I. P. C. On 19/2/1983 (19/3/1982?) at about 12 in the noon, he non-applicant distributed the copies of a weekly PRAGDA BHARAT published from Bhopal wherein an article was published with the caption the order of the Magistrate, First Class quashed by the Sessions Court as being illegal. It was further mentioned in that article that the non-applicant has sought permission from the High Court for prosecuting the applicant and has also served a notice claiming damages for defamation. According to the applicant, the action of the non-applicant is mala fide, intimidator, defamatory and scandalous and affects adversely the administration of justice and tends to interfere and lower the prestige and authority of the Court. ( 4 ) THE non-applicant in his reply in Misc. Cr. Case No. 1234 of 1983 submitted that his jeep MPH 879 was challaned and produced before the applicant under sections 112, 3/112 and 22/112 of the Motor Vehicles Act and on his plea of guilty the contemnor was fined Rs. 100/-which he paid, but the applicant asked the contemnor to send his vehicle to the applicant on the next day for his personal use; however, he forgot to send the vehicle which annoyed the applicant; though the case was already closed after payment of. fine, in order to harass the non-applicant, the applicant tampered with the record, made several additions and alterations and the. issued the warrant of arrest against him on 24. 9. fine, in order to harass the non-applicant, the applicant tampered with the record, made several additions and alterations and the. issued the warrant of arrest against him on 24. 9. 1982; since the contemnor learnt about issuing of warrant of arrest against him, he himself appeared before the applicant and pleased for closing of the case; when he appeared before the applicant, the remarked as to how the contemnor has come without handcuffs and ordered his release on bail of Rs. 1000/- with one surety; by caution, the contemnor had taken a surety with him and on completing the formalities he was released but the Magistrate refused to give a copy of the order recalling the warrant of arrest; the contemnor, therefore, approached the Sessions Judge that he is not being supplied with a copy of the order recalling the warrant of arrest and he was told to apply in writing; thereafter the contemnor was given Hamdast of the order; the contemnor could not be humiliated because the contemnor had obtained stay from the Sessions Court, as the record which is not a judicial act and amounts to an offence; he, therefore, made a complaint to the Chief Justice in order to bring these facts to his notice although the revision pressured by him was allowed, by the Sessions Judge, but he did not grant any relief against harassment; however, if this Court is of the opinion that sending a complaint to the Chief Justice amounts to contempt, he tenders his qualified apology. In Misc. Cr. Case No 1434 of 1983 the contemnor further submitted that he never distributed copies of the weekly Pragda Bharat dated 19. 2. 1981 or at any other date. In Misc. Cr. Case No 1434 of 1983 the contemnor further submitted that he never distributed copies of the weekly Pragda Bharat dated 19. 2. 1981 or at any other date. Besides the article in question was not published at the instance of the contemnor and it is merely a factual report of the revision allowed by the Sessions Judge; after the complaint made by the contemnor to the Chief Justice, the applicant tried to terrorise the contemnor through police officers; he, therefore, served a notice under section 80 C. P. C. and also sought permission from the Chief Justice to prosecute the application or defamation; the contemnor is a layman and he was not acquainted with the Court procedure; the contemnor never thought of committing any contempt of the Court and he only wanted to get redress for his harassment; however, he again tendered his unqualified and unconditional apology. A notice of the contempt application was also issued to the Editor, Printer and Publisher of Pragda Bharat and by his reply the Chief Editor submitted that there were many complaints from the public and lawyers of Sehore about the behaviour and intentional harassment by the applicant to the litigants especially to persons belonging to well-to-do families; accordingly a reporter was sent to Sehore together information and learnt that the order against the contemnor has been set aside by the Sessions Court as being illegal and without jurisdiction the factual position has been published; the publication is a fair criticism of the factual aspects of the case and there is no contempt nor there was any intention to commit any contempt. ( 5 ) SO far as Misc. Cri. Case No. 1234 of 1983 regarding filing of Criminal Revision No. 38 of 1982 before the Sessions Judge and sending of a complaint dated 8. 11. 1982 to the Chief Justice by the contemnor and then sending a reminder on 19. 12. 1982 regarding action taken on his earlier complaint, we do not think that making of such complaints to the higher judicial authority against a subordinate Judicial officer amounts to contempt. Section 6 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides that a person shall not be guilty of any statement made by him in good faith concerning a Presiding Officer of any subordinate Court. Section 6 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 provides that a person shall not be guilty of any statement made by him in good faith concerning a Presiding Officer of any subordinate Court. Since the case against the contemnor under sections 112, 3/112 and 22/112 was finally disposed of oft 23. 9. 1982 the sending of the complaints subsequently for the subsequent notice of the applicant in issuing warrant of arrest against the non-applicant do not tend to interfere with the judicial process. The Sessions Judge in the criminal revision found the allegation of the applicant in issuing warrant of arrest after the case was already closed to be illegal and without jurisdiction. According to the Sessions Judge, once the contemnor admitted his guilty for the offences against him under the Motor Vehicles Act before the mobile Magistrate and after he was fined, which he paid the case came to a close. Thereafter the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to split up the charges and proceed against some more charges. Section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requires that the judgment shall be pronounced either immediately after the termination of the trial or at some subsequent time of which notice shall be given to the portion. Although it has not been laid down precisely in the Code, it is sufficiently clear from sections 353 and 354 that if the judgment is intended to indicate final order in the trial terminating in either conviction or acquittal of the accused, so the trial of the contemnor ended with the delivery of judgment on 23. 11. 1982. So the same trial could not be reopened tried for any more charges, even if they were omitted by the Magistrate. Splitting of the challan could possibly be ordered before the trial is concluded, which was not done in the present case. Besides, the fine was imposed on the non-applicant in respect of contravention of sections 112, 3/112 and 22/112 of the Motor Vehicles Act which he paid. So having paid the fine for the offences he could not again be proceeded against for the same offences. Moreover sections 3 and 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act require the driver to produce the driving licence and registration certificate when checked and for giving time to produce the same. So having paid the fine for the offences he could not again be proceeded against for the same offences. Moreover sections 3 and 22 of the Motor Vehicles Act require the driver to produce the driving licence and registration certificate when checked and for giving time to produce the same. Section 86 only authorizes the police or the R. T. O. for this purpose and the Magistrate is not authorized to demand these documents. So the action of the Magistrate was illegal and without Jurisdiction when the section itself provides for 10 days time to produce these documents. Therefore, warrant of arrest could not have been issued for non production of these documents on the next day after the trial was over. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, we are of the opinion, that the further action of the contemnor in serving notice under section 80 C. P. C. on the Magistrate for damages and also seeking permission from the Chief Justice for prosecuting him were misconceived. Since the Magistrate is fully protected for his action under the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850. It appears that the contemnor was not conversant with the practice and procedure of the court and because of his alleged harassment by the applicant he thought it fit to seek his legal remedies. But since he has tendered his unconditional and unqualified apology, we accept the same and drop proceedings in Misc. Cr. Case No. 1434 of 1983. So far as the Editor, Printer and Publisher of the weekly Pragda Bharat is concerned, they have only published the decision of the Sessions Judge in the Criminal revision against the order of the Magistrate holding the same to be illegal and without jurisdiction. It was also mentioned in that report that the non-applicant has sought permission for prosecuting the Magistrate and has also claimed damages, we are of the opinion that though the weekly should not have published about serving of notice and seeking of permission to prosecute the Magistrate, but the action was bona fide in good faith and there was no intention to commit contempt. So the notice issued to the Editor, Printer and Publisher is discharged. ( 7 ) THE contemnor is also seeking protection from this court against harassment by the Magistrate concerned. So the notice issued to the Editor, Printer and Publisher is discharged. ( 7 ) THE contemnor is also seeking protection from this court against harassment by the Magistrate concerned. Since on the complaint of the contemnor to the Chief Justice action is being taken departmentally where there can be proper and full enquiry, which may not be possible in this contempt proceedings, we desist from giving any opinion about the complaint made against the Magistrate, particularly when he is not represented here. Suffice it to say that the action of the Magistrate in issuing warrant of arrest and seizure of the vehicle after the trial came to an end is without any authority of law. Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act itself provides for giving 10 days time to the driver or owner to produce the driving licence or registration certificate. So the Magistrate could not have straightway issued warrant of arrest for non-production of the driving licence and registration certificate on 24. 9. 1982. Evidently it appears there is corrections and additions in the summary-sheet and the order sheets in Criminal Case No. 498 of 1982. In the particulars of the offence explained, among other irregularities, it was also mentioned that there was no licence which was been scored out. After the particulars were explained there is an endorsement JURUM SWIKAR KIYATT, but thet following words have been added in different ink KINTU MERE DRIVING LICENCE AND REGISTRATION GHAR PAR RAKHA HATTT. In the order there was mention of contravention of section 3/112 and 22/112 of the Motor Vehicles Act for which he was fined Rs. 100/-, but the figures 3/112 and 22/112 have been scored out. Surprisingly, the receipt which was given to the contemnor, the fine was for contravention of sections 3/112 and 22/112 also. This creates a doubt that the scoring may have peen done subsequently in order to justify taking further action against the contemnor, according to whom the Magistrate has asked for this jeep to be sent on the next day for his personal use but the contemnor had forgotten and, therefore, warrant of arrest was issued against him and the vehicle ordered to be sealed in order to harass him. In the order of 23. 9. In the order of 23. 9. 1982, there is a typed order-sheet saying that the contemnor had admitted the offence and the judgment pronounced for the offence under section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but there is a subsequent addition in handwriting that the contemnor requested for time to produce the registration certificate and the driving licence, which he has been asked to produce on 24. 9. 1982. We fait to understand what was the urgency in issuing non-bailable warrant of arrest and directing seizure of the vehicle on the very next day when section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for giving 10 days time for production of the documents. Even if the contemnor was asked to produce the documents on 24. 9. 1982 and which he failed to do. a notice should have been given directing him to produce the documents or at the most bailable warrants could have beenissued. There was no justification for issuing straightway non-bailable warrants of arrest for such non-compliance. It is also difficult to see on what basis the Magistrate wrote that there is apprehension of the contemnor absconding. According to the contemnor, he is a respectable businessman and at the relevant time he was President of the M. P. Coal Merchants Association. There is reason to doubt that there may be some truth as to what has been alleged by the contemnor in his complaint to the Chief Justice. So the disciplinary authority will have to see whether there is any truth in the complaint made by the contemnor to the Chief Justice. ( 8 ) WITH the result the rule is discharged in Misc. Cri. Case No. 1234 of 1983 and in Misc. Cri. Case No. 1434 of 1983 the apology of the contemnor is accepted and the proceedings dropped. Parties to bear their own costs. Order accordingly. Misc. Cri. Case No. 1434 of 1983 Shrikant Choudhary v. M. L. Jha ORDER For the reasons given in Misc. Cr. Case No. 1234 of 1983 between the same parties, the apology tendered by the contemnor, i. e. the non-applicant, is accepted and the proceedings dropped. Parties to bear their own costs. .