S. N. Phukan, J.— This is an unfortunate case where notice has been issued under the Contempt of Court Act against a judicial officer, namely, Shri L. N. Tamuly, Additional District Magistrate, Kamrup, at Gauhati on the basis of the report submitted by District and Sessions Judge, Gauhati vide his letter dated J 1.12.89. We say so inasmuch an Additional District Magistrate while trying cases as an Executive Magistrate is also a judicial officer under the control of this Court. 2. Briefly stated, facts are as follows ;-A proceeding under section 107 CrPC was drawn up against Shri Dinesh Rajbangshi and others and the case No. 861m/89 was pending in the Court of Shri B. R. Kathkatia, Executive Magistrate, Gauhati and on 26. 8. 89 the first party namely, Shri Niren Barua filed an application that the 2nd party constructed a thatched house over the plot of land. The present respondents converted the case into a proceeding under section 144 CrPC and against that order the 2nd party preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge. At that time Shri G. S. Basumatary was on leave and he empowered Shri K. K. Das, Assistant District & Sessions Judge, No. 1, Gauhati to dispose of urgent application/ bail petition by exercising powers under sub-section (2) of section 10 CrPC. This was done as per direction of this Court in administrative capacity. The revision petition was admitted and Mr. Das passed an order on 31. 8. 89 staying the operation of the order passed by Mr. Tamuly on 29. 8. 89 coverting the proceeding. Thereafter by order dated 1.9.89 Mr. Tamuly passed an order and the relevant portion of the said order is quoted below :- "However, before complying the aforesaid order of the learned J/c Sessions Judge, Kamrup and before intimating the order to the O/c, Noonmati P. S. for compliance, I consider it expedient to note the following observation and to pray the learned I/c Sessions Judge, Kamrup for offering a clarification on the point raised herewith below : Section 9 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, hereinafter only the Code, has created the Court of Sessions and sub section (2) of the section 9 has created the 'Judge' to be presided over the "Court of Session". Hence the Sessions Judge has been given concurrent revisional powers U/s 397 and independent powers of revision U/s 399 of the Code. And the Executive Magistrate including the District Magistrate is subordinate to the Sessions Judge for the purpose. Sub-section (5) of the section 9 provides that the High Court may make arrangements for disposal of any urgent applications by an Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge in case of falling vacant of the office himself may make provisions for disposal of any urgent application by Additional or Assistant Session Judge in case of his absence or inability under section 10 (3) of the Code. Since the revisional jurisdiction is given only to the Sessions Judge, instead of the Court of Sessions, it creates a confusion as to how one In-charge Sessions Judge can admit a revision, an extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred by the Code, without falling vacant of the office of the Sessions Judge, Kamrup. However, it is not known to this Court if the High Court has appointed any Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge to exercise the jurisdiction of the Court of Sessions at Kamrup U/s 9 (2) or made arrangement U/s 9 (5) of the Code. Sections 397 and 399 of the Code mentions about the Sessions Judge only, not the Court of Sessions. Several Hon'ble High Courts have opined that the Sessions Judge can not re-delegate the powers of Revision to the Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge U/s 10 (3) of the Code. This governs by the section 9 (2) as appears to me. The legal standing being so, I humbly pray your honour to enlighten me with the facts that if the office of the Sessions Judge did not fall vacant on 31.8.89 or any Additional or Assistant Sessions Judge was not appointed U/s 9 (2) on 31.8.89 or no arrangement was made under section 9 (5) or delegated U/s 10 (3) on 31. 8. 89, whether the order passed on 31. 8. 89 in the C. M. No. 47 (K-3) of 1989 has any legal standing on revision for subsequent compliance by the subordinate or inferior court when it was passed by an In-charge Sessions Judge ? Because any order passed by the revisional authority is unquestionably binding upon the inferior Courts and this Court never confronted with such situation in the past. Because any order passed by the revisional authority is unquestionably binding upon the inferior Courts and this Court never confronted with such situation in the past. I have made this prayer with' out any malafides and without any intention to derogate or to disobey the statutory authority conferred by the C. de. Legal propriety impels me to put the matter before your honour for strict and immediate compliance of the order passed by the revisional authority having valid jurisdiction under the Code. Pending receipt of the clarifications, I do decide not to make the both the orders dated 29. 8. 89 and the order of the In charge Sessions Judge effective in the proceeding." Subsequently again on 26.9.89, Mr. Tamuly passed an order and relevant portion of the said order is quoted below :- 'This present case come into being due to fresh cause of action that arised second time which originally related to t' e Case No. 861 m/89 U/s. 144 Cr. P. C. The order passed on 29. 8. 89 had been stayed by Shri K. K. Das, the I/c District and Sessions Judge, Kamrup in the C. M. No. 47 (K-3) of 1989. Since the admission of the Revision by the I/c District & Sessions Judge, Kamrup led certain legal points and order was passed of obser­vatory in nature praying for clarifications from the I/c Sessions Judge Kamrup for subsequent compliance. Though 20. 9. 89 was fixed for hearing of the revision, no order has yet been intimated and during pendency of the matters in question, the same hand has passed the present order on 20. 9. 89 staying the second order. Since the observation dated 1.9.89 in the Case No. 861 m/89 raised certain vital legal points but left without clarifications, this second order in the second case by the same authority carries no legal bindings as the objection revisional jurisdiction stands without answer. However, if the points are clarified in the mean time, the former order dated 29.8.89, will be binding upon this Court for unconditional compliance. In view of the above facts and observation I do decide to get the order dated 16.9.89 of this case executed. The O/c. Noonmati P. S shall execute the order and report the manner of the execution latest by 30. 9. In view of the above facts and observation I do decide to get the order dated 16.9.89 of this case executed. The O/c. Noonmati P. S shall execute the order and report the manner of the execution latest by 30. 9. 89 without fail, and in case of failure, necessary legal steps shall be taken him U/s 29 of the Police Act, 1861." According to learned Sessions Judge Mr. Tamuly, Additional District Magistrate acted in a high handed manner and has brought this matter to this Court for drawing up contempt proceeding and accordingly on 10. l.90 notice was issued. 3. Mr. Tamuly has filed a long affidavit justifying his action and taking the legal plea that the order passed by Mr. K. K. Das was signed as "I/c Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Gauhati" and as such it was not an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. He has also taken the plea that as Mr. Das was empowered only to dispose of urgent applications/bail petitions, he is not competent to take up revision petition as contemplated under CrPC. We may also quote below para 15 of the affidavit which is relevant for the present purpose. "In spite of the legal and factual positions stated in the above paras, your humble answering opposite party reiterates herewith his unqualified respect, regard, obedience and allegiance to the learned Sessions Judge and the learned Court of Sessions. Whatever prayers had been made in the aforesaid orders, those were never intended to derogate the instit­ution, offices "and officers created by the statutes but were made only to appreciate, obey and honour to propriety and dignity of the institutions and the offices. However, if the said prayer had hurt or affected the dignity of the learned Court, I do hereby tender my apology with the same open mind and heart as no malafides were allowed to creep up in such matters." When the matter came up for hearing before us Mr. Tamuly appeared in person and tried to place his points of view. We thought it fit and proper to appoint a counsel for assist the Court and accordingly Mr. J. Singh was appointed. 5. It may be stated at the outset that in addition to paragraph 15 of the counter Affidavit filed by Mr. Tamuly the officer also tendered apology at the time of hearing before this Court. 6. Mr. We thought it fit and proper to appoint a counsel for assist the Court and accordingly Mr. J. Singh was appointed. 5. It may be stated at the outset that in addition to paragraph 15 of the counter Affidavit filed by Mr. Tamuly the officer also tendered apology at the time of hearing before this Court. 6. Mr. Singh gave us 7 points for enquiry by us in the present proceeding and the said points are quoted below ; 1. Whether the act or omission complained is contempt of Court ? 2. Whether the said act or omission is bonafide/innocent y 3. Whether the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially inter­feres or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice f 4. Whether the contemner has committed contempt of his own Court as well ? 5. Whether the contemner is entitled to protection under Judicial Officer's Protection Act, 1895 ? 6. Whether the tone, temper and contents of the orders of the contemner coupled with the intemperate language constitutes a deliberate attempt to lower the authority of the superior judicial officer and whether the same squarely falls within the definition of contempt as defined under the Act ? 7. Whether the whole chain of actions the contemner amounts to substantial interference with the due course of justice ?" 7. Mr. Singh also submitted that the respondent Mr. Tamuly is a young officer and he has tendered apology and he seems to be in remorse. Mr. Singh has fairly stated that if the officer is found to be at fault, he has to be corrected, the remarks made by Mr. Tamuly may by expunged and the case may be transferred to some other Courts and a word of 'Censure' is necessary for future guidance of the officer and further the language used by Mr. Tamuly has to be tempered for maintaining judicial discipline. We have given our due consideration to the matter and as the present contempt matter arises between two officers while discharging judicial functions we have to strike a balance so that such unfortunate incident does not happen in future. 8. We are not happy with the designation used by Mr. K. K. Das as I/c Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Gauhati. We have given our due consideration to the matter and as the present contempt matter arises between two officers while discharging judicial functions we have to strike a balance so that such unfortunate incident does not happen in future. 8. We are not happy with the designation used by Mr. K. K. Das as I/c Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Gauhati. During our inspection of Courts, we have seen even Bench Assistants signed for the Presiding Officer of the Court when the officer is on leave or out of station. So for future guidance we direct that all the officers who are empowered to exercise the powers of Sessions Judge binder sub-section (2) of section 10 CrPC, they should clearly bring out this legal position in the order itself. A copy of this paragraph may be sent to all Sessions Judges within our jurisdiction for the compliance. 9. The plea of Mr. Tamuly that an officer empowered by Sessions Judge under sub-section (2) of section 10 CrPC cannot entertain revision petition has no force. Any officer empowered under sub-section (2) of section 10 CrPC can definitely entertain all urgent matters including revision petition and pass also interim order of stay 10. By passing the order on 26.9.89 Mr. Tamuly, respondent No. 1 in our opinion has wilfully disobeyed the order passed by Mr. Das. If he had any doubt in the matter, he should have first obeyed the order and thereafter he could have consulted with the Govt. Pleader or Public Prosecutor regarding actual position of law. Subsequent order dated 26.9.89 is also improper inasmuch as he came to a finding regarding the powers of Sessions Judge, In charge. 11. We are, therefore, of the opinion that Mr.Tamuly has committed contempt of Court by disobeying the orders of the superior Court, namely Sessions Judge. We have already stated we are not happy with the words used by Mr. Das that the order was passed as 'In-charge, Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Gauhati'. We have also recorded that Mr. Tamuly has tendered apology in para 15 of his counter and also at the time of final hearing he tendered apology in presence of Mr. J. Singh learned Advocate. 12. Though we find Mr. Tamuly guilty under the Contempt of Court Act, considering the facts and circumstances of the case we accept the apology and we do not propose to impose any sentence. J. Singh learned Advocate. 12. Though we find Mr. Tamuly guilty under the Contempt of Court Act, considering the facts and circumstances of the case we accept the apology and we do not propose to impose any sentence. We however, direct that officer shall be careful in future and if orders of stay etc. are received from the Higher Court or if he is informed of such orders, he should not proceed with the case. We also expunged the order passed by. Mr. tamuly on the dates indicated above i.e. order dated 1 9.89 and 26.6.89. We direct the learned District Magistrate to transfer the case to some other competent Court. 13. Mr.Tamuly is not entitled, in our opinion, to get protection under the provision of the Judicial Officers' Protection Act, 1895 as the order was passed by him against an order passed by a superior judicial authority. 14. With the above direction, the petition is disposed of.