COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION v. STATE OF H. P. — 1986 DIGILAW 25 (HP)

JUDGEMENT R.S. Thakur, J. :- This order will dispose of two Contempt Petitions (Criminal) Nos. 7 and 8 of 1985, whereby the Court has suo motu initiated proceedings in criminal contempt against the State of Himachal Pradesh and its employees mostly belonging to the Police and posted at Dharmsala. Karam Singh respondent No. 2 and Himmat Ram respondent No. 3 in Contempt Petition (Cr.) No. 7 of 1985 and Bai Chand and Parveen Kumar, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 respectively, in Contempt Petition (Cr.) No. 8 of 1985 at the relevant time were posted as constables at Dharamsala, whereas R. S. Pathania and Jaswant Monga, respondents Nos. 4 and 5 respectively were posted as Superintendent of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police respectively in District Kangra at Dharmsala. M. L. Nahar, respondent No. 6 was General Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner Kangra at Dharmsala later on re-designated as Assistant Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra. 2. The proceedings in Contempt Petition (Cr.) No. 7 of 1985 were commenced on the report of the Sessions Judge, Kangra Division at Dharmsala dated August 26, 1985 to the effect that in a criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1985 entitled Mahinder Singh v. State, the convict/appellant Mohinder Singh was produced in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge on January 23, 1985 in handcuffs in flagrant violation of the orders of this Court. 3. The record reveals that said Mohinder Singh on conviction in some criminal case had filed an appeal against his conviction before the learned Sessions Judge when he was still undergoing sentence in the jail at Dharmsala. The appeal was fixed for hearing before the learned Sessions Judge on January 23, 1985 when the appellant/accused Mohinder Singh was produced before the Sessions Judge by the Head Constable Karam Singh, respondent No. 2 and Constable Himmat Ram, respondent No. 3 in handcuffs. The learned Sessions Judge finding that the handcuffing of the accused/appellant was in violation of the order/directions of this Court, recorded the statement of Head Constable Karam Singh immediately wherein said Head Constable purports to have stated that since he had joined the duty at Dharmsala as such only on January 21, 1985 on transfer from 1st H.P. Battalion Junga in District Shimla, he had no knowledge that the accused/appellant was not to be produced in the Court in handcuffs. Besides, according to him, he also came to know in the Police lines at Dharmsala that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, respondent No. 5 Jaswant Monga had got a report registered in the daily diary register that he had discussed the matter regarding the handcuffing with the General Assistant as a result whereof it was decided that the accused in the jail over there would, in future, be produced in the Court in handcuffs and that since the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh was a clever person he had been produced in the handcuffs in the Court. 4. On this, the learned Sessions Judge issued notice to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jaswant Monga (respondent No. 5) and M. L. Nahar, Assistant Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner, (respondent No. 6) and sought their explanation in this behalf. Both these officers then filed their respective affidavits. 5. Respondent No. 6, M. L. Nahar, admitted that at the relevant time besides holding the post as Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner later on redesignated as Assistant Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner was also holding the charge of Superintendent of Jail at Dharmshala. He further admitted that on January 16, 1985, at about noon he received a telephone call from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jaswant Monga to the effect that constables on escort duty with the undertrials or prisoners while being taken to the hospital for treatment have found it difficult to discharge their duties in a proper manner since the undertrials/prisoners generally tried to mix up with their relations while out of the jail and also pressurised the escort guards for allowing them to make purchases in the Bazar and under these circumstances it was intended that the under-trials/prisoners should be handcuffed while being taken for treatment. To this, according to Nahar, his reply was that the Deputy Superintendent of Police should take action in accordance with law. According to him, there was no such talk that these undertrials/ prisoners should be taken in handcuffs even while being produced in the Courts and he came to know about the instant case whereby the accused appellant Mohinder Singh was taken in handcuffs to the Court of Sessions Judge, only after he received the notice in this behalf and that as such he had no such intention to issue any instructions in violation of the law. 6. 6. As regards the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jaswant Monga, his reply was that on January 16,1985 he received copies of the daily diary reports Nos. 12 and 16 and in the latter report of January 16, 1985, it was stated that when the undertrials/prisoners are taken to hospital at Dharmshala for treatment etc. the constables on escort duty with them found it difficult to discharge their duties since said undertrials/prisoners mixed up with their relations who usually have prior information of their coming to the hospital for treatment and they indulge in long meetings and also insist upon having purchases. He then examined this matter in consultation with the Assistant Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharmshala, on telephone and the Assistant Commissioner then told him that in such like circumstances the undertrials/prisoners be escorted in handcuffs to ensure safe custody and that he would also direct the jail authorities accordingly in this behalf. The report to this effect, according to him, was also recorded in the daily diary but there was no directions either in writing in the report or oral that the. undertrials/prisoners while being escorted to the judicial courts be also taken in handcuffs and that the officials concerned escorting the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh mis-interpreted this report in the daily diary and wrongly took him to the Court of Sessions Judge in handcuffs and that in these circumstances there was no intention on his part to flout the instructions of the Honble Supreme Court or the Honble High Court regarding handcuffing of the undertrials/ prisoners. He further asserted that in fact the Superintendent of Police Kangra at Dharmshala, on the other hand, had issued specific directions to all concerned in the District to the contrary on January 24, 1986. A copy of this order of the Superintendent of Police District Kangra at Dharmshala (R-4) R. S. Pathania, dated January 24, 1985 was also placed on record along with the reply of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jaswant Monga. The relevant portions thereof (order) may be extracted as follows :- "The Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Himachal Pradesh have ordered that handcuffs shall not be used in routine. In case there is sufficient reason for handcuffings of undertrials/prisoners then prior permission of Court concerned shall be obtained. The relevant portions thereof (order) may be extracted as follows :- "The Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Himachal Pradesh have ordered that handcuffs shall not be used in routine. In case there is sufficient reason for handcuffings of undertrials/prisoners then prior permission of Court concerned shall be obtained. In case circumstances warrant then action may be taken and Court concerned must be informed accordingly thereafter without any delay..... All supervisory gazetted Police Officers shall please ensure that the orders of the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Himachal Pradesh are complied with in letter and spirit...... Should there be any contravention of the above orders relating to handcuffing of undertrials/prisoners then prior permission of Court concerned shall be obtained. In case circumstances warrant then action may be taken and Court concerned must be informed accordingly thereafter without any delay....... All supervisory gazetted Police Officers shall please ensure that the orders of the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Himachal Pradesh are complied with in letter and spirit..... Should there be any contravention of the above orders relating to handcuffing of undertrials/prisoners a police escort is liable to be held responsible for their individual act. This order may kindly be announced in the roll call continuously for three days in the police lines, all police stations and police posts for general information of everyone...... It is, therefore, ordered that all the handcuffs on charge of Police Lines, must be immediately deposited with KOT Head Constable Police Lines. Those shall not be issued until and unless escort/guard has given a written application to Lines Officers who shall personally verify the facts and recommend the case to the Dy. S. P. Incharge Police Lines. The handcuffs shall be issued under the orders of Gazetted Police Officers, that is, Dy. S.P./Addl. Superintendent of Police/Superintendent of Police." 7. The Sessions Judge at Dharmsala then submitted his report along with these documents to the effect that prima facie the offence under the Contempt of Courts Act appears to have been committed in the case in hand, whereon the same was registered as Contempt Petition (Criminal) under the orders of my lord the Chief Justice. 8. The respondents have again filed their individual affidavits in this Court. 9. 8. The respondents have again filed their individual affidavits in this Court. 9. Respondent No. 2 Karam Singh, Head Constable has in his reply affidavit taken up substantially the same defence, namely, that almost his entire service career was spent in the H. P. Armed Police Battalion Junga since 1971 and that he joined as Head Constable in Kangra District at Dharmshala only on January 21, 1985 and as such he was not aware about the instructions/directions of the Supreme Court or the High Court regarding handcuffing of the undertrials/ prisoners while being taken out of the jail and he could know about this only on January 24, 1985 when the specific order in this behalf was issued by the Superintendent of Police Kangra at Dharmshala. He admitted that he accompanied constable Himmat Ram on January 23, 1985, when he took the accused/appellant Mohinder Singh to the Court of Session Judge in a criminal case No. 2 of 1985 as his guard in the capacity of an escort, in handcuffs, but that he was ignorant of the fact at that time that there were instructions of the Supreme Court or the High Court against handcuffing. He further stated that at that time he had also come to know that the Dy. S.P. and the General Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner at Dharmshala had decided that the accused/undertrials were to be handcuffed while being taken to the Courts or any other place and he had made a similar statement before the Sessions Judge, Dharmsala, as well. He further stated that even if despite this it is found that he had acted in contravention of the orders or directions of the Supreme Court or the High Court, he regretted the action from the core of his heart, purged himself and tendered unconditional apology. 10. The reply of constable Himmat Ram is also substantially the same namely ignorance about the orders of the Court regarding non-handcuffing and the confusion created by the decision of the two officers, namely, Deputy Superintendent of Police Monga and the Assistant Commissioner, Nahar. 11. 10. The reply of constable Himmat Ram is also substantially the same namely ignorance about the orders of the Court regarding non-handcuffing and the confusion created by the decision of the two officers, namely, Deputy Superintendent of Police Monga and the Assistant Commissioner, Nahar. 11. Shri R. S. Pathania, the then Superintendent of Police at Dharmsala has in his affidavit, asserted that he was quite aware of the judgment of the Supreme Court and the High Court with regard to the handcuffing of undertrials/prisoners while being taken out of the prison and that he had been issuing instructions in this behalf to all concerned from time to time and the last order/instruction in this behalf was issued by him on January 24, 1985, (relevant portion extracted above). 12. The reply affidavits of M. L. Nahar, the then Assistant Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner, Dharmsala and Jaswant Monga Dy. S.P. contain almost the same pleas as they had taken while filing their reply affidavits before the Sessions Judge and they have both asserted that they had no intention to get in violation of the orders/ direction of the Honble Supreme Court/High Court of Himachal Pradesh and that in case it be found that there has been such lapse on their part they tendered unconditional apology. Contempt Petition (Cr.) No. 8 of 85. 13. In the other writ petition No. Contempt Petition (Cr.) No. 8 of 1985, the learned Sessions Judge has reported that the two constables Bai Chand and Parveen Kumar, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 respectively, had produced the accused Jagdish Chand undertrial before him in handcuffs on March 12, 1985, in contravention of the law laid down by the High Court and were liable to be convicted for contempt of court. This has been stoutly denied by the two constables in their reply affidavits. They asserted that they never produced said Jagdish Chand before the learned Sessions Judge in handcuffs on March 12, 1985. They further averred that as a matter of fact vide order of the Superintendent of Police, Dharmsala, dated January 2, 1985, it was specifically ordered that no undertrial/prisoner shall be taken out of the jail to any other place or to the Court in handcuffs and all the handcuffs were ordered to be deposited in the KOT which could be issued only under the order of the Gazetted Police Officer of the rank of Dy. S.P./ Additional S.P./Superintendent of Police and in these circumstances there was no question of their taking said Jagdish Chand to the Court on March 12, 1985 in handcuffs and it is for this reason that no report in daily diary register has been brought on record showing that they got any such handcuffs issued from the KOT of the Police Lines for taking the accused Jagdish Chand to the Court. 14. Similar are the averments in the affidavit of other constable Parveen Kumar. 15. We are of the opinion that these averments on the part of the two constables are acceptable and the learned Sessions Judge appears to have made the observations that the accused Jagdish Chand was produced before him by these two constables in handcuffs under some inadvertent mistake. The only circumstance on record which has formed the basis of the observations of the learned Sessions Judge is the order-sheet on the file of the learned Sessions Judge dated March 12, 1985, 6.05 PM which is as follows:- "Present:- Shri F. C. Kahal, P.P. for the State. Accused Jagdish Chand in custody of S/Shri Bail Chand No. 802 and Parveen Kumar No. 505. Due to Sessions trial the orders could not be dictated. As such kept for orders on 14-3-1985. Sd/- Sessions Judge". 16. This, however, does not disclose that the accused Jagdish Chand was produced by the two constables in handcuffs as there is no such mention therein. The only word used is that the accused Jagdish Chand was in custody of the two constables but this by no stretch of imagination could be construed that he was produced in handcuffs as even without handcuffs the accused is supposed to be in the custody of two constables under the law. Further in this case, the learned Sessions Judge has not sought the explanation of any of the two constables as to why the accused was produced in handcuffs in violation of the law as he had done in the other Contempt Petition (Cr.) No. 7 of 85. Further in this case, the learned Sessions Judge has not sought the explanation of any of the two constables as to why the accused was produced in handcuffs in violation of the law as he had done in the other Contempt Petition (Cr.) No. 7 of 85. In any case we are satisfied that the two constables would not have dared to act in such a brazen fashion despite the specific orders of the Superintendent of Police, Dharmsala, dated January 24, 1985 to the contrary and also the fact that the Court had in the case of Mohinder Singh who was produced in handcuffs on January 23, 1985 had taken such a serious note and initiated proceedings against the officials concerned. We, therefore, hold that in this case no contempt appears to have committed and the respondents deserve to be discharged 17. As regards the criminal contempt petition No. 7 of 1985, the question that very much arises for consideration is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the respondents, or any of them, have committed the contempt of court and, if so, whether the contempt is of civil or criminal nature. 18. Two rulings of the Supreme Court are relevant to the case in chand, namely, Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration AIR 1978 SC 1675 : (1978 Cri LJ 1741), and Prem Shankar v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1535 : (1980 Cri LJ 930). The sum and substance of both the rulings is that a person incarcerated in the prison is not completely denuded of his fundamental rights irrespective of the magnitude of the offence he may have committed. Of course, by the very fact that his liberty is curtailed on account of this detention under the law, those rights suffer abridgment and atrophy. However, whatsoever rights survive despite this handicap, the necessity of scrupulously safeguarding and nurturing them can hardly be over-emphasised. One of them is his right to be treated as person and not a non-person and to save him from the indignity and barbarity of shackling him in handcuffs, chains or any other contraption and thus as a rule the detenu in a jail should not be put in handcuffs or any other contraption while in prison or while being taken out of prison to Court or any other place and vice versa. 19. 19. This Court had the occasion to construe this law as laid down by the Supreme Court in a Division Bench case in Philip John v. State of H.P. reported in ILR (1984) Him Pra 327 : (1985 Cri LJ 397). In that case Philip John while undergoing sentence of imprisonment in the Model Central Jail Nahan was brought to the Sub Jail at Kaithu (Shimla), for undergoing medical treatment at the Showdon Hospital, Shimla. On April 9, 1984 while he was being taken from the Sub Jail Kaithu to Snowdon Hospital in the custody of the Police constables, he was put in handcuffs on his way to the hospital and the handcuffs remained, unremoved even at the time when he was medically examined by the Medical Officer in the Snowdon Hospital and also when brought back to Sub Jail Kaithu. Said Philip John then made a complaint to the High Court with the request that the respondents be proceeded against under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for violating the directions issued by the Supreme Court against this improper handcuffing of the petitioner. This Court while holding that the prayer of Philip John was misconceived and the court had no jurisdiction to commit for contempt any person who acts in wilful disregard/breach of the directions issued by the Supreme Court on the point in question, further observed as follows :- The Court cannot, however, threw out the petition on that ground, for the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts within the territory of India (vide Article 141) and it is not only within the power, authority and jurisdiction of this Court to secure the enforcement of such law by or through the agencies of the State by issuance of an appropriate writ, but also its constitutional obligation and duty to do so. Besides, all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India have to act in aid of the Supreme Court (Vide Article 144). Under the circumstances, the State and its agencies are under a constitutional obligation and duty to ensure the enforcement of the directions/ instructions issued by the Supreme Court. Besides, all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India have to act in aid of the Supreme Court (Vide Article 144). Under the circumstances, the State and its agencies are under a constitutional obligation and duty to ensure the enforcement of the directions/ instructions issued by the Supreme Court. An appropriate writ can, therefore, issue in exercise of the judicial powers of this Court to secure such enforcement on the pain of contempt..........." This Court then summarised the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in this behalf, i.e., on the point of hand cuffing of the detenu in the following terms. 1. Hand cuffing is prima facie inhuman and therefore, unreasonable and harsh and arbitrary; 2. The competing claims of securing the prisoner from fleeing and protecting his personality from bairbarity have to be harmonised; 3. Insurance against escape does not compulsorily require handcuffing and there are other measures whereby an escort can keep safe custody of the detenu without the indignity and cruelty implicit in handcuffs or other iron contraptions; 4. If a few more guards would suffice then no handcuffs, if a close watch by an armed police man will do, then no handcuffs; if alternative measure may be provided then no iron bondage; 5. Save in rare cases of concrete proof readily available of the dangerousness of the prisoner in transit the onus of proof of which is on him who puts the person under iron -the police escort will be committing personal assault or mayhem if he handcuffs or fetters his charge; 6. Tangible testimony, documentary or other of desperate behaviour, geared to making good his escape, alone will be a valid ground for handcuffing and [Provided by increasing the strength] and fettering and even this may be of the escort or by taking the prisoners in well protected van/vans; these measures would ordinarily serve as alternative safeguards and 7. Even in cases where, in extreme, circumstances, handcuffs have to be put on the prisoner, the escorting officer must record contemporaneously the reasons for doing so; in cases of undertrials prisoners, the escorting officer whenever he handcuffs a prisoner produced in court, must show the reasons so recorded to the presiding Judge and get his approval". 20. Even in cases where, in extreme, circumstances, handcuffs have to be put on the prisoner, the escorting officer must record contemporaneously the reasons for doing so; in cases of undertrials prisoners, the escorting officer whenever he handcuffs a prisoner produced in court, must show the reasons so recorded to the presiding Judge and get his approval". 20. This Court then after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances on record came to the conclusion that respondents, more particularly the constables who handcuffed the petitioner Philip John had acted in clear breach of the law declared by the Supreme Court but it had not been established that there had been wilful disregard on their part of the law so declared as there did not appear to be awareness on the part of the prison officers as well as on the part of the police officers, as regards the clear instructions and directions of the highest Court in the matter of handcuffing of the prisoners. This Court then proceeded to make the following orders/ directions :- "Under the circumstances in order to ensure that the prison authorities as well as the police authorities incharge of the prisoners during transit act in conformity with the law so declared, it would be just and proper to direct the State Government to circulate a copy of this judgment to all Jail Superintendents and to all Superintendents of Police in this State, within a period of 15 days, with a clear direction that the observation made in this judgment as well as the instructions issued and the directions given in regard to handcuffing of prisoners in transit in the portion extracted from the decision of the Supreme Court in Prem Shankars case annexed hereto be strictly followed and that any breach thereof would be seriously viewed. The Court would like to observe that if, in future any such instance of handcuffing of prisoners (under-trials or convicts) in breach of these observations/ instructions or directions comes to notice the same will be viewed seriously having regard to the fact that all prison officers and police officers must be deemed to have now become aware of the law regarding handcuffing. The State Government will also take requisite steps in regard to providing the prison and/or police authorities with adequate means and authority to devise safeguards such as increasing the strength of escorts, or taking in well protected vans the prisoners with the proclivity to escape from custody so that handcuffing is not required to be resorted to as far as possible........" 21. In compliance with these directions a copy of this judgment along with the relevant extracts of the decision of the Supreme Court in Prem Shankars case (supra) was ordered to be circulated not only to the jail Superintendents and the Superintendents of Police in the State but also to all the Judicial Officers in the State for due compliance. 22. Now in the face of this judgment of this High Court, it is apparent that in case it is found on the basis of the facts and the circumstances of the case on record that despite the fact that the respondents or any of them had notice of this judgment of this Court and the directions/instructions contained therein were wilfully violated, there is no doubt whatsoever that they are liable for committing contempt of this Court. 23. It may also be stated at this stage that I after giving due consideration to the I arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the relevant law, we are of the opinion that in case it is found that any of the respondents have acted in violation of the directions/instructions of this Court issued in Philip John case (supra), it will amount to contempt of civil nature and not of criminal one although the writ petition has been registered as criminal one. 24. In the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 2 defines Contempt of Court as meaning Civil Contempt or Criminal Contempt. Then the Civil Contempt has been defined as meaning wilful disobedience to any judgment or decree or directions, order, writ or other process of court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court. 24. In the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 2 defines Contempt of Court as meaning Civil Contempt or Criminal Contempt. Then the Civil Contempt has been defined as meaning wilful disobedience to any judgment or decree or directions, order, writ or other process of court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court. Criminal Contempt according to the definition means the publication whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visual representations, or otherwise of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which; (i) scandalises or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner;". These provisions have been construed by various High Courts in India and even the highest court in the Country. The sum and substance of their findings is that the criminal contempt consists in an attempt that offends the majesty of law and undermines the dignity of the Court. A civil contempt on the other hand is failure to obey a courts orders issued for the benefit of any party and the principle object of civil contempt is to secure the enforcement of any order which has been disobeyed wilfully. 25. As already observed, this Court had in Philip Johns case categorically pronounced the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Prem Shankars case that a detenu in the jail shall not be put in handcuffs or any other fetters while being taken to Court or to any other place save under very exceptional circumstances which have to be of plausible and substantial nature and not imaginary, justifiable before and after the event before the competent authority particularly the judicial courts concerned. The handcuffing of Mohinder Singh, in the instant case, was obviously in violation of these specific directions and as such in case it is held that this disobedience was wilful then the defaulters concerned will be liable to civil contempt of this Court. 26. The handcuffing of Mohinder Singh, in the instant case, was obviously in violation of these specific directions and as such in case it is held that this disobedience was wilful then the defaulters concerned will be liable to civil contempt of this Court. 26. Now the first question that arises for determination is whether H. C. Karam Singh or the constable Himmat Ram are liable for this contempt who had taken said Mohinder Singh to the Court of Session Judge on January 23, 1985 in handcuffs? 27. We have carefully considered this question and find that on the facts and in the circumstances of this case they do not seem to have acted in wilful disobedience of the directions/instructions of this Court. 28. In the first place, the respondent Karam Singh not only in his statement recorded immediately after the learned Sessions Judge found that said Mohinder Singh was brought in handcuffs to his court, has categorically stated that he was completely ignorant of any directions/ instructions in this behalf by the Supreme Court or this Court, as he remained most of the time in the H. P. Armed Police at Junga and had joined at Dharamsala only three days prior to this incident. Then he has further made a reference to the fact that after due consultations between the Dy. S.P. Jaswant Singh and the Assistant Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner Dharamsala, M. L. Nahar, who was also at that time working as Superintendent Jail, Dharamsala, it was decided that the undertrials/convicts should in future be taken to the Courts in handcuffs. This is further confirmed by the report recorded in the daily diary dated January 16, 1985, on record that as a result of consulations between the Dy. S. P. Shri Monga and the Asstt. Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner, Shri Nahar on telephone, thenceforth, the undertrials/accused, while being taken out of the jail, should be put in handcuffs. This is further confirmed by the report recorded in the daily diary dated January 16, 1985, on record that as a result of consulations between the Dy. S. P. Shri Monga and the Asstt. Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner, Shri Nahar on telephone, thenceforth, the undertrials/accused, while being taken out of the jail, should be put in handcuffs. In fact from the affidavits filed by the, two officers, namely, Jaswant Monga and M. L. Nahar, it is apparent that at least they had allowed the escorts to handcuff the detenu while being taken out of the jail to hospital for medical treatment, In fact from the affidavit of Jaswant Monga, it appears that this permission was limited to the detenu being taken in chains for medical treatment to the hospital only and not to the Court but this is of no consequence. The violation of the orders of this Court is there even if the detenu is handcuffed while being taken to hospital for treatment and not to the Court. The report of January 16, 1985, in the daily diary is, however, categorical that the detenu should be taken in handcuffs out of the jail when being taken to the court or to hospital. Although Jaswant Monga, respondent No. 5 has stated that later on he amended this report but that is of no consequence and possibility cannot be ruled out of its being an after-thought, At least in view of these facts and the circumstances on record, it cannot be said that the head constable Karam Singh and constable Himmat Ram acted in wilful disobedience of the directions of this Court as a lot of confusion appears to have been created by the two officers, that is, Jaswant Monga and M. L. Nahar on this point. We therefore, held that the notice against the two respondents, namely, Karam Singh and Himmat Ram, Nos. 2 and 3 respectively is liable to be discharged. 29. It appears from the record that the case of the respondents other than the two constables has been that these two constables had handcuffed the said Mohinder Singh as a result of some decision arrived at in this behalf in a meeting of class III employees of the Police at Dharamsala which was held on January 20, 1985. That, however, is of no consequence in this case. That, however, is of no consequence in this case. In the first place, there is nothing on the record to show that any of the two constables namely, Head Constable Karam Singh or constable Himmat Ram attended this meeting on January 20, 1985 which fact could impress them with the knowledge that there was any prohibitory order from this Court against handcuffing of the detenus while being taken out of the jail. Further in the deliberations of that meeting, a reference to this effect has been made only in the last para No. 6 which is to the effect that proper vans should be provided when the detenus are taken to the Court or the hospitals and in the absence of the vans, a proper number of escort should be provided which was not being done at that time. This demand as it stands is of innocuous nature and is rather in consonance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Prem Shankars case. (1980 Cri LJ 930)(supra). 30. As regards the two officers, namely, Jaswant Monga, Dy.S.P. and M. L. Nahar, Assistant Commissioner to the Deputy Commissioner, we feel that it cannot be said that at the relevant time they were unaware of the directions of the Supreme Court as articulated by this Court in Philip Johns case on the point in question. From their respective returns it rather appears that they were in the full knowledge of these directions/instructions and wanted to act in derogation thereto in a certain set of circumstances, namely, while the detenus were to be taken to the hospital for treatment so that they may not indulge in lengthy conversation and association with their relations or pressurise the escorts to let them resort to shopping etc. No doubt Shri Nahar has not conceded in his return that he agreed with Shri Jaswant Monga that the detenus be handcuffed while being taken to hospital and according to him he only told said Jaswant Monga that he should act in accordance with law. Assuming that this was the precise reply of Sh. Nahar, we do not feel that it in anyway enfeebles the culpability or liability of Shri Nahar. Since he was quite aware of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court and as construed by this Court on the point of handcuffing, it was expected of Sh. Assuming that this was the precise reply of Sh. Nahar, we do not feel that it in anyway enfeebles the culpability or liability of Shri Nahar. Since he was quite aware of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court and as construed by this Court on the point of handcuffing, it was expected of Sh. Nahar to disagree with the proposal of Jaswant Mango and to tell him that before this handcuffing is resorted to, all the procedural safeguards in this behalf as laid down by law should be satisfied which was obviously not done. We, therefore, hold that these two officers are guilty of contempt of this Court as their overt, acts in the capacity of Dy.S.P. and officiating Superintendent of Jail respectively have; resulted in disobedience/ violation of the categorical directions/ instructions of this Court in Philip Johns case (1985 Cri LJ 379)(supra). 31. It is, however, clear that they have purged themselves and tendered unconditional apologies and this being their first lapse in the circumstances of this case, their apologies are accepted and they are only administered warning to be careful in furture. 32. The last person left for consideration is the respondent No. 4, R. S. Pathania, who was the Superintendent of Police at Dharamsala. We find that the record does not show any involvement of this officer in the case in hand. It is clear that on January 24, 1985 he issued a detailed order whereby he not only directed all the Gazetted Police Officers, the Station House Officers, Line Officers and Incharge of the Police Posts working under him to scrupulously follow and comply with the orders of the Supreme Court and of this Court on the point of handcuffing but also directed that the orders be announced in the roll call continuously for three days in the police lines. Further he I even ordered that all the handcuffs should be deposited with the KOT Head Constable in the Police lines and they should not be issued in future without the specific orders of a Gazetted Officers, that is, the Dy. S.P./ Additional Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police, himself in order to avoid the future chances of their misuse. S.P./ Additional Superintendent of Police and Superintendent of Police, himself in order to avoid the future chances of their misuse. It may be noted, however that this order was issued on January 24, 1985 whereas the incident had taken place a day earlier, that is, on January 23,1985 and is unable to egative the assertion of the respondents Karam Singh and Himmat Ram that till January 23, 1985 they were ignorant of the specific directions of this Court on the point at issue and were labouring under misconception in view of the consultations between Jaswant Monga Dy. S.P. and M. L. Nahar, Superintendent of Jail, as reflected by the report in the daily diary of January 16, 1985. 33. In view of this the notice against respondent R. S. Pathania is also discharged and the petition is disposed of accordingly. 34. Before we part with this petition, however, we are constrained to observe that although this Court while deciding Philip Johns case, (1985 Cri LJ 397) had categorically directed that the State Government will circulate a copy of this judgment to all the jail Superintendents and to ail the Super-intendents of Police in the State, within a period of fifteen days with a clear direction that the observations made in that judgment as well as the instructions issued and the directions given with regard to the handcuffing of the prisoners in transit in portions extracted from the decision of the Supreme Court in Prem Shankars case (1980 Cri LJ 930) annexed thereto, be strictly and that any breach thereof would be seriously viewed, the affidavit filed on behalf, of the Government of Himachal Pradesh, respondent No. 1, does not disclose that the Government had circulated the copy of the judgment to the Inspector General of Police. Apparently it was circulated only to the Inspector General of Prisons vide communication dated July 24, 1984, which, of course, the Inspector General of Prisons circulated to all the jails vide letters dated August 14, 1984 and also dated February 22, 1985. There is, however, no document to show that it was similarly circulated to the Inspector General of Police for the same purpose. There is, however, no document to show that it was similarly circulated to the Inspector General of Police for the same purpose. The Registrar (Vigilance), is, therefore, directed to make inquiry in this behalf and to report whether the Government of Himachal Pradesh had forwarded the copy of this judgment in accordance with the directions of this Court and if so when and also as to what steps the Inspector General of Police took after the receipt of the copy of, this judgment from the Government? The report should be submitted within a period of two months. Order accordingly.