GULAB CHAND GUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 215 of the Constitution of India nw Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 praying that this Court should take cognizance of contempt committed by the respondent No. 1 by violating this Courts order dated 12/2/1992. This Court had found a prima facie case of contempt existing and therefore issued notice to the nonapplicant-contemner to show cause why he should not be punished. The non-applicant-contemner has appeared in person and filed reply on 2/7/1992. Though the said reply is not signed by the respondent-contemner, facts contained therein have been taken into consideration. ( 2 ) APPLICANT Ram Krishna Pandey claims to be the founder of Kamakhya Shakti Peeth at village Bhardakala, Distt. Durg. He claims to be a devotee of Goddess Kamakhya and earns his living by worshipping the Goddess. The applicant apprehended his arrest by the non-applicant No. 1, who is the officer-in-charge of P. S. Arjunda, having jurisdiction over the village Bhardakala and therefore approached this Court for anticipatory bail by filing the application u/s. 438, Cr. P. C. The said application (M. Cr. C. 3897/91) was heard by this Court on 18/12/1991 when this Court ordered that meanwhile it is directed that the accused shall not be arrested during the pendency of this application as till further orders. T The applicant alleges that after the non-applicant -contemner learnt about the grant of anticipatory bail by this Court, threatened him that he will register a new offence every time the High Court grants bail and this will continue as long as the applicant does not fulfil his demands of payment of money. M. Cr. C. 3897191 was heard finally on 12/2/1992 and the ad interim bail granted to the applicant confirmed. The record of the said case does not indicate that any particular statement was given by the non-applicant-contemner or on his behalf in this Court regarding his alleged objectionable activities. The orders of this Court granting anticipatory bail, ad interim or otherwise, did not relate to any particular crime. The case of the non-applicant - contemner however is that since on the date, only Crime No. 106/91 was registered against the applicant, he related the anticipatory bail order to that crime and did not arrest him. The orders of this Court granting anticipatory bail, ad interim or otherwise, did not relate to any particular crime. The case of the non-applicant - contemner however is that since on the date, only Crime No. 106/91 was registered against the applicant, he related the anticipatory bail order to that crime and did not arrest him. The applicant submits that after receiving a certified copy of the order dated 12/2/1992, he went to the police station and informed every one present there about it. The non-applicant contemner was however not present at the police station. It is however common ground that the applicant was not arrested in connection with crime No. 106/91. The case of the applicant is that on 6/4/1992 he was called to the Police Station and therefore he went with his Advocate Shri Nirmal Kumar Kalihari. The applicant thereafter was told by the non-applicant that the High Court bail order would not be able to save him from arrest. The non-applicant -contemner got the applicant arrested and paraded through the town and ultimately taken to the Court of Magistrate for purposes of obtaining his remand in connection with Crime No. 24/92. The Magistrate, while granting remand, directed applicant's released on bail which was done. The case of the applicant is that the crime No. 24192 has been created only to bye pass the order of this Court and to get the applicant arrested inspite of this Courts order. It therefore amounts to intentional violation of this Court's order and therefore a clear case of contempt. ( 3 ) THE non-applicant contemner has however submitted that on. 29/3/1992 one Roshanlal Devangan of Bhilai had lodged a report and on the basis of the said report, Crime No. 24192 u/s. 420 I. P. C. was registered. The non-applicant-contemner has denied all adverse allegations including those which relate to threats by him for sending the applicant to jail inspite of the High Courts order. The reply, as stated earlier, is neither signed nor supported by an affidavit of the non-applicant contemner. The applicant has also filed an affidavit of Nirmal Kumar Kalihari, Advocate of Durg to the effect that on 6/4/1992, he had gone to the police station with the applicant and met the non-applicant-contemner and requested him not to say anything that may undermine the dignity of the Court. The applicant has also filed an affidavit of Nirmal Kumar Kalihari, Advocate of Durg to the effect that on 6/4/1992, he had gone to the police station with the applicant and met the non-applicant-contemner and requested him not to say anything that may undermine the dignity of the Court. According to the Advocate, the non-applicant-contemner granted bail but immediately thereafter got him arrested and paraded handcuffed in the town and taken to the Court of Judicial Magistrate which granted him bail. The affidavit of Shri Nirmal Kumar Kalihari, Advocate, prima facie proves the correctness of statement contacted in the application. ( 4 ) NOW, if a police officer, with an intention to avoid the effect of this Courts order, create a crime and acts in a manner that undermine the dignity and authority of this Court, he, without doubt,commits contempt of this Court. Such an act of the police officer not only undermines the authority of this Court but also brings it into disrepute by lowering its authority in the eyes of general public. Learned Dy. Advocate General, who appeared for the non-applicant-contemner, did not challenge this legal position and hence the only question requiring consideration of this Court is whether the non-applicant-contemner created crime No. 24192 with an intention to violate this Court's order. This Court has obtained original case diary of the said crime and finds is very suspicious. For that reason, this Court is of the opinion that the crime No. 24/92 was registered only to arrest the applicant inspite of the order of this Court. Crime No. 24/92 was registered on 29/3/1992 at 6. 40 p. m. and relates to an incident of 1989. The F. I. R. has not been recorded on the form prescribed for the purpose but finds place in the case diary and bears page, Nos. 43 and 44. Case diary dated 30/3/1992 is written on pages bearing Nos. 96 and 97. Case diary of 31/3/1992 bears page No. 99 and 100 but the case diary of 6/4/1992 and 31/5/1992 bear page Nos. 56 and 60. There is no Book Number mentioned in any of these pages which clearly indicates that it has not been serially maintained. This shows that loose-sheets are apparently kept and used to create a case diary which is not in accordance with the rules. 56 and 60. There is no Book Number mentioned in any of these pages which clearly indicates that it has not been serially maintained. This shows that loose-sheets are apparently kept and used to create a case diary which is not in accordance with the rules. The part of the case diary bearing F. I. R. does not indicate that the F. I. R. was ever sent to the Magistrate as required. Case Diary of 30/3/1992 and 31/3/1992 seems to have been written the same day. Though the F. I. R. is recorded on 29/3/1992, the statement of Roshanlal and his wife are recorded on 30/3/1992 at Bhilai. Statement of Roshanlal indicates that he is the resident of Chhavni Police Station Bhilai and hence, the statement would have been recorded at that police station. Then the diary on 30/3/1992 and 31/3/1992 has been written at the same time as would be clear from the penused and the writing on the- diary. Then, the statements of Dronsingh and Moujiram bear signature of the non-applicant dated 31/3/1992 from which it may be possible to infer that he has been visiting Bhilai in connection with this offence on these two dates. There is nothing to indicate as to why the witnesses were not examined on 30/3/1992. Similarly, there is nothing in the case diary to indicate as to why the statement of complainant Roshanlal was not recorded on 29/3/1992 itself when his F. I. R. was recorded. The fact that F. I. R. was not sent to the nearest Magistrate, the fact that the pages of the case diary do not have proper sheet numbers and the fact that the statements of witnesses appear to have been recorded on the same date but bear different dates, make the entire case diary doubtful. The case diary has to be maintained in a manner provided in the Police Manual. It is treated to be an important document and relied upon by the Court. Its sanctity is bound to be violated if it is maintained so casually as in the instant case. Learned Dy. Advocate General however submitted that the case dianies are now maintained in this very manner, which statement makes this Court somewhat worried. Actions of the police officials are to be scrutinised with a view to ensure that they act according to law. Learned Dy. Advocate General however submitted that the case dianies are now maintained in this very manner, which statement makes this Court somewhat worried. Actions of the police officials are to be scrutinised with a view to ensure that they act according to law. This country has not opted for a Police Raj and therefore nothing required to be done by a police officer is permitted to depend on his subjective satisfaction. This Court is therefore of the opinion that proper maintenance of case diary is an important requirement of law and must be insisted upon by all Courts. In view of the submission of the learned Dy. Advocate General, the Magistrates and Sessions Judge should scrutinize the case diaries with little more care and caution and insist upon its maintenance in accordance with law. ( 5 ) THIS Court is also not satisfied about the legal knowledge of the non-applicant-contemnar. He does not seem to have applied his mind to the alleged complaint and has acted upon the opinion of the Constable recording the F. I. R. that a case u/s. 420 I. P. C. is prima facie made out. The fact that the incident was being reported after three years, does not seem to have received attention. The basic facts relating to the crime are that the applicant obtained money to perform Puja to secure cure of the ailment of the complainant. Does it amount to offence u/s. 420, I. P. C. ? Section 420,i. P. C. requires cheating as also Tdishonest' inducement to the person cheated to deliver the property. Cheating is defined u/s. 415 I. P. C. as consisting of deceiving any person fraudulently or dishonestly. If the F. I. R. is considered in the context of the aforesaid law, it would be doubtful if any such case is made out From the F. I. R. it appears that the applicant had never gone to the complainant but the complainants wife had heard about him and told her husband about the divine power exercised by the applicant. F. I. R. also indicates that the complainants wife had heard about his reputation from others who were cured of their ailments because of the Puja Performed by the applicant If in such a situation, the complainant had voluntarily gone to the applicant and agreed to perform Puja as directed, it will require serious consideration if any cheating was involved in it. Section 154 Cr. P. C. which does with recording of F. I. R. requires the police officer to first apply his mind to the fact whether the information related to, a cognizable or non-cognizable case. The police officer has jurisdiction to investigate only a cognizable case. Sub-section (3) of Section 154 makes it clear that the police officer is required to investigate a case only after he is satisfied that the information discloses a commission of a cognizable offence. The case diary does not indicate anything of the like and therefore it is possible to hold that the non-applicant-contemner has not applied his mind. ( 6 ) THEN, the order of the Judicial Magistrate granting bail to the applicant indicates that the copy of this Court's order dated 12/2/1992 was produced before him and the bail was granted because of this Courts order. This indicates that the learned Magistrate did not think that the order of this Court was related to any particular crime. If a Magistrate, charged with the responsibility of administering criminal law has understood, the true import of this Courts order, there was no reason why the non-applicant-contemner would not have understood the same. This Court is therefore clearly of the opinion that the Crime No. 24/92 was registered by the non-applicantcontemner against the applicant only with a view to arrest him in violation of this Court's order. These facts find full support from the Affidavit of Nirmal Kumar Kalihari, Adv. , against whom no statement of any type has been made and this Court finds nothing to disbelieve his affidavit. Added to it is the fact that them applicant was handcuffed and paraded through the streets of the town for no justification. All the aforesaid facts lead this Court to conclude that the non-applicant-contemner had wilfully violated this Courts order and arrested the applicant inspite of direction to the contrary. Added to it is the fact that them applicant was handcuffed and paraded through the streets of the town for no justification. All the aforesaid facts lead this Court to conclude that the non-applicant-contemner had wilfully violated this Courts order and arrested the applicant inspite of direction to the contrary. Since the act of the non-applicant-contemner under mines the authority of this Court and shakes the faith of public in its effectiveness, it amounts to a serious contempt of Court. ( 7 ) THE non-applicant-contemner has, inspite of his personal appearance, not submitted any apology and therefore the Court has to decide proper punishment to be imposed upon him. Since this appears to be the first case against the non-applicant-contemner, this Court would not like to impose any jail sentence and remain satisfied by imposing sentence of fine. Taking all facts and circumstances into consideration, this Court sentences him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ (Rs. one thousand) and in default of payment of fine, he will undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month. A copy of this order shall be sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate Durg for realisation of fine or for sending the non-applicant contemner to jail to undergo sentence. The Chief Judicial Magistrate will report to this Court the action taken by him. .