JUDGMENT N. M. Kasliwal, C J.—These contempt proceedings were initiated by the Court on its own motion against the Executive Magistrate, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, State of Himachal Pradesh, and District Magistrate, Bilaspur. The Registrar of the High Court, on the instructions of the Chief Justice, Shri P. D. Desai, had issued an order No. HHC. J. 15-S-(6l)/84-I-2765, dated the 3rd April, 1984 to all the District Magistrates in Himachal Pradesh, on the administrative side. The above letter issued by the Registrar, reads as under:— "The High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 197 r exercises the power of Superintendence over all the Executive Magistrates in the State, in relation to proceedings before such Magistrates under sections 107, 108, 109, 110, 133, 145 and 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In order to exercise such power of superintendence more effectively, it is essential that such Executive Magistrates should submit to this High Court periodical returns with regard to the pendency and disposal of cases triable by them under the aforementioned sections. I have, therefore, been directed to convey to you that monthly returns in the enclosed proforma should be submitted by you and the Additional District Magistrate, if any, as well as by all the Executive Magistrates subordinate to you so as to reach the High Court by the 10th of each month. The Additional District Magistrate, if any, and Executive Magistrates subordinate to you may be directed to submit their returns through you. These instructions may be brought to the notice of the Additional District Magistrate, if any, and all the Executive Magistrates subordinate to you for strict compliance. The instructions with regard to submission of the monthly returns shall be operative from April 1, 1984 and the first of such returns must be submitted on or before 10th of May 1984 and the subsequent returns be submitted on or before 10th of each succeeding month. The receipt of the letter may kindly be acknowledged." 2. The instructions with regard to submission of the monthly returns shall be operative from April 1, 1984 and the first of such returns must be submitted on or before 10th of May 1984 and the subsequent returns be submitted on or before 10th of each succeeding month. The receipt of the letter may kindly be acknowledged." 2. In accordance with the above instructions, monthly returns were required to be submitted by all the District Magistrates, Additional District Magistrates, if any, as well as the Executive Magistrates to reach the High Court by 10th of each month in relation to proceedings under sections 107, 108, 109, 110, 133, 145 and 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It appears that the Executive Magistrate, Ghumarwin in District Bilaspur made a breach of the above order in sending monthly returns in time. In view of these circumstances, a notice for contempt of court was issued by this Court on its own motion. 3. It may also be mentioned at this stage that after the above order dated 3rd April, 1984, the Chief Justice had also prescribed a proforma for submitting of the monthly returns together with remarks to be recorded on the performance of the Executive Magistrates on the judicial side, to be filled by the Reporting Officer. Shri S. B. Rewal, who had served as Tehsildar-Executive Magistrate of Ghumarwin during the relevant period, submitted a reply-affidavit Shri Rewal explained in the said affidavit that the return regarding monthly disposal for the month of March, 1987 was submitted to the District Magistrate vide No. 140, dated 4th April, 1987 on the prescribed proforma. The Memo No. BLS-Peshi-8 (CriminalV87-l 1-33^36 captioned "Remarks recorded on the performance on judicial side of the Executive Magistrate" dated 20th June, 1987 sent by the District Magistrate was received on 24th June, 1987. According to Mr. Rewal, the District Magistrate in the Memo, mentioned above, passed directions to send the statement for the month of March, 1987 on the prescribed proforma and also to explain the reasons for not having sent the statement on the prescribed proforma within two days. According to Mr. Rewal, the directions of the District Magistrate were strictly complied with. Rewal, the District Magistrate in the Memo, mentioned above, passed directions to send the statement for the month of March, 1987 on the prescribed proforma and also to explain the reasons for not having sent the statement on the prescribed proforma within two days. According to Mr. Rewal, the directions of the District Magistrate were strictly complied with. The compliance was sent on 25th June, 1987 whose copy was also sent to the Assistant Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Simla, vide Annexure R-2/A. The obvious implication of the directions was that the statement had not been sent on prescribed proforma According to Mr. Rewal, there was no other proforma available in his office. The office of the S. D. M., Ghumarwin was consulted and the statement was submitted on the prescribed proforma obtained from the office of the S. D. M. Thereafter, no further direction was conveyed by the District Magistrate or the Assistant Registrar of the High Court pointing out any defect in the statement or any other guidance in this regard upto 26th September, 1987, when he was relieved from his duties as Tehsildar-Executive Magistrate at Ghumarwin. 4. Mr. Rewal further deposed that the mistake, if any, was due to misunderstanding He holds the Honble High Court in high esteem and can never think of disobeying the directions of the Honble High Court. The mistake committed, if any, was not intentional. It was due to lack of experience, mis-understanding and lack of guidance. In these circumstances, it was prayed that the contempt notice may kindly be discharged. 5. It appears that subsequently, the State Government was asked to file additional affidavits. In compliance to the said order, Shri M. L. Gupta, Deputy Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, filed an affidavit on 15th September, 1988. In para 4 of the said affidavit, it has been stated that the position of the Courts of the Executive Magistrates is different from the Judicial Courts. The function of Executive Magistrate is only of limited extent to their total main functions. In respect of their Judicial function alone, they are required to send returns to the Honble High Court. In para 4 of the said affidavit, it has been stated that the position of the Courts of the Executive Magistrates is different from the Judicial Courts. The function of Executive Magistrate is only of limited extent to their total main functions. In respect of their Judicial function alone, they are required to send returns to the Honble High Court. It has been humbly submitted that over and above the existing practice of communicating aggregate assessment of the performance to the respective District Magistrates annually for their record, information and necessary action at the time of recording the ACRs of the concerned officer, the State Government will take note of adverse assessment for appropriate action, if it is decided to communicate the same to it also. Hence it would serve the purpose instead of making it mandatory that ACRs. of Executive Magistrates are to be recorded by District and Sessions Judges. Strict instructions for sending returns have already been issued. The instructions dated 27th February, 1988 sent by the Secretary (Home) to all the District Magistrates in Himachal Pradesh, earlier to the above affidavit, have also been placed on record. 6. Another affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Secretary (Home) on 30th March, 1989. In this affidavit it has been stated that the matter has been considered by the Government in entirety. While doing so, the practice obtaining in this behalf in the adjoining States has also been taken into consideration. In none of the adjoining States the ACRs. of the Executive Magistrates are written by the Sessions Judges/High Court. It has been further deposed that the powers of Executive Magistrates are delegated to various Officers working as Deputy Commissioners, Additional Deputy Commissioners, A. D. Ms. Assistant Commissioners, Tehsildars, Naib-Tehsildars whose main functions consist of executive, revenue and developmental duties. In view of the above position, it has been decided by the Government that the ACRs. of Executive Magistrates should not be written by the Sessions Judges/High Court. 7. Now so far as these contempt proceedings are concerned, Shri Rewal has already explained the circumstances for the delay in sending the returns and the explanation appears to be quite just. It cannot be said that Shri S. B. Rewal had any intention to disobey the administrative directions of this Court in sending the monthly returns in time. 7. Now so far as these contempt proceedings are concerned, Shri Rewal has already explained the circumstances for the delay in sending the returns and the explanation appears to be quite just. It cannot be said that Shri S. B. Rewal had any intention to disobey the administrative directions of this Court in sending the monthly returns in time. He has also mentioned that he has high esteem for the Honble High Court and never thought of disobeying the directions of the Honble High Court. In view of these circumstances, so far as these contempt proceedings are concerned, the rule issued against the respondents is discharged. 8. The matter does not end with the disposal of the contempt petition, because the other issue as to who should write the ACRs. of the Executive Magistrates has also been raised in these proceedings and reply-affidavits have been brought on record from the side of the State I have considered the matter in all its ramifications. There can be no manner of doubt that the High Court has a power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India over all the Courts subordinate to the High Court and suitable directions can be given in discharge of administration of justice by the High Court to the District Magistrates as well as the Executive Magistrates in the State. The question, however, is of writing ACRs. of the Executive Magistrates. The, State in the reply-affidavit has clearly stated that no ACRs. of the Executive Magistrates are written by the Sessions Judges/High Court in the adjoining States. To my knowledge also, no such ACRs. of the-Executive Magistrates are written by the Sessions Judges or the High Court in other States. It is, no doubt, correct that some part of the duties are discharged by the Executive Magistrates in deciding cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure, but the Executive Magistrates also discharge other executive, revenue and developmental duties. The High Court is not the appointing authority of these Executive Magistrates nor they are directly under the disciplinary control of the High Court. In view of these circumstances, I hold that the ACRs. of the Executive Magistrates are not required to be written by the Sessions Judges or the High Court. The High Court is not the appointing authority of these Executive Magistrates nor they are directly under the disciplinary control of the High Court. In view of these circumstances, I hold that the ACRs. of the Executive Magistrates are not required to be written by the Sessions Judges or the High Court. It may also be mentioned that the anxiety of the High Court that the work with regard to the cases under the Criminal Procedure Code may be properly and efficiently discharged by the Executive Magistrates, is sufficiently safe-guarded by the affidavit dated 15th September, 1988 filed by the Deputy Secretary (Home), Government of Himachal Pradesh on behalf of the State. This affidavit states that the existing practice of communicating the aggregate assessment of the performance to the respective District Magistrates annually for their record, information and necessary action at the time of recording the ACRs. of the concerned officer, the State Government will take note of adverse assessment for appropriate action, if it is decided to communicate the same to it also. 9. In future, in supersession of the order No. HHC. J. 15-S (61)/84-I-2765, dated 3rd April, 1984, it is directed that there is no need of calling any monthly statement from the Executive Magistrates to the High Court. In its place the monthly statement should be sent by the Executive Magistrates to the District Magistrate concerned. The District Magistrate would himself consider the performance of the Executive Magistrates for writing their ACRs. In case, any case decided by the Executive Magistrate under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code comes to the notice of Sessions Judge in exercise of the revisional powers or in the notice of the High Court under revisional powers or inherent powers or under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India and any remarks are given in that case with regard to the particular Executive Magistrate then a copy of such order shall be brought to the notice of the District Magistrate concerned and that would be kept on the record of the Executive Magistrate for the assessment of his annual performance during the year for writing the ACRs. This petition stands disposed of in the manner indicated above. Order accordingly. -