JUDGMENT 1. - The accused contemner Shiv Narain is present in person. He has been heard at length. None else is present. 2. On November 24, 1992, S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 2407/92 was moved by Shri Sandeep Mehta Advocate under section 438, Cr.P.C. in F.I.R. No. 150/92, Police Station Khanda Falsa, Jodhpur registered under sections 420 and 406, I.P.C. for and on behalf of the accused-con-temner Shiv Narain. 3. On Decemmber 9, 1992, the following order was passed on it by the Court:- "Hon'ble Shri N.K. Jain, J. Mr. Sandeep Mehta for the petitioner. Mr. H.R. Panwar, P.P. Mr. J.L. Daga for the complainant. Mr. Mehta submits that the petitioner is ready to appear before the I.O. for interrogation and will hand over the pipe weighing 13.5 Kg. got by him on Superdaginama from the Court on 26.4.89 in F.I.R. No. 150/92. He also submits that the petitioner is prepared to pay Rs. 50,000/- ( Rs. Fifty Thousand) to the complainant within one month from today. Heard. Under the circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to appear before the concerned 1.0. on 8.1.1993 and thereafter as and when directed for interrogation. The petitioner will pay a draft of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant within one month and will also deliver 13.5 Kg. pipe in the presence of I.O. and complainant will give receipts thereof. The I.O. will submit his report to the learned P.P. on or before 15.1.1993. Put up; on 15.1.1993 as prayed. In the meantime Shiv Narain, the petitioner shall not be arrested till 15.1.1993. N.K. Jain, J." 4. ' On January 18, 1993, Shri Sandeep Mehta Advocate, learned Counsel for the accused Shiv Narain, requested for 10 days' time complying with the said order and filled a certified copy of the Final Report given in the said F.I.R. No. 150/92. The case was adjourned to January 28, 1993. 5. On January 28, 1993, Mr. Saraswat Advocate appeared for and on behalf of the accused Shiv Narain and submitted that the bail application be dismissed as not pressed. Thereon, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the complainant invited the attention of the Court towards the above-quoted order dated December 9, 1992 and requested that contempt proceedings be initiated against the accused Shiv Narain for disobeying the said order. Thereon, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the complainant invited the attention of the Court towards the above-quoted order dated December 9, 1992 and requested that contempt proceedings be initiated against the accused Shiv Narain for disobeying the said order. Accordingly, cognizance of the contempt was taken against the accused Shiv Narain and notice was issued to him under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 6. In reply to the notice, the accused Contemner has filed his affidavit and a copy of the complaint dated January 19, 1993 made against Shri Sandeep Mehta Advocate to the Bar Council of Rajasthan, Jodhpur. Therein, he has stated that he never instructed Shri Sandeep Mehta, Advocate that he (accused contemner Shiv Narain) would make payment of Rs. 50,000/-, the said statement was given by Shri Sandeep Mehta, Advocate on his own accord and he executed a 'Vakalatnama' in his favour on November 22, 1992. 7. As the matter is pending before the Bar Council, Rajasthan, Jodhpur and Shri Sandeep Mehta, Advocate is not a party in these contempt proceedings, it is neither necessary nor expedient to give a definite finding that the accused Shiv Narain instructed his Counsel Shri Sandeep Mehta, Advocate to give the said statement in the Court on December 1, 1992 or not. For the present purpose, it would be sufficient to mention here that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, the accused Shiv Narain had lodged a F.I.R. in the police about the theft in his factory about two years before the complainant lodged the said F.I.R. No. 150/92, the value of the properties stolen away or in respect of which breach of trust was committed was not of about Rs. 50,000/-. There had been much correspondence in between the complainant and the accused Shiv Narain regarding the properties stolen away in the said theft prior to the said F.I.R. No. 150/92, there is no power (vakalatnama) on the file authorising Shri Sandeep Mehta, Advocate to give such a statemment before the Court, the memo of appearance filed along with the bail application by Shri Sandeep Mehta Advocate does not bear the signature of accused Shiv Narain and after investigation the police found that no offence punishable either u/Sees. 406 or 420, I.P.C. was committed by the accused Shiv Narain and gave F.R. Under these facts and circumstances, it would not be safe to hold that the accused Shiv Narain wilfully dis obeyed the said order dated December 9, 1992 directing him to make payment of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant.Accordingly, notice issued to the accused Shiv Narain under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is discharged.Petition allowed. *******