S. K. Homchaudhuri, J.— A local vernacular daily namely 'Daily Desher Katha' in its issue dated 28.5.88 published a news item under the following caption : "Opposition Leaders, allegation to the Chief Justice of Supreme Court - The Home Minister has compelled to change the Court's order by way of exercising unlawful interference to the works of Judiciary."In the said news item amongst other it was published : "It is learnt from reliable source that the State Home Minister sent an urgent message to the SDJM Sonamura on 19th May through the OC of Sonamura Police Station so that he meets the Home Minister on that day. The reasons are best known to him. The Home Minister was offended and he sent the District Judge Shri RB Sinha to Sonamura on 20th May in the morning by a Police vehicle TRP 207. As a result the SDJM of Sonamura was compelled to come at Agartala on that very day with the District Judge Shri Sinha along with all concerning papers in connection with the case and he met with the Home Minister at 12'O'Clock. It is on that very day the SDJM returned back to Sonmura at about 4.15 PM and he proceeded to his Court chamber. In the meantime, there came a message to the APP Sonamura so that he moves an appeal to the Court to stay operation of the earlier order of releasing the Bus on bail. As per said directive, a petition was filed in the Court on that very day and the Court issued an order of stay upon the Bus on 20th May at 4.40 PM." The aforesaid news item having came to the notice of a Division Bench of this Court sitting at Agartala, this Court by order dated 31.5.88 suo motu initiated a proceedings and called for report from the then Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate Shri DK Das Choudhury and Shri RB Sinha, the then District and Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. After going through the report and the relevant records this Court decided to initiate a proceeding under the Contempt of Court Act against the opposite parties/respondents and accordingly Criminal Original Petition (Contempt) No. 8 of 1988 was registered at Guwahati and notices were issued to the respondents. The case was thereafter transferred to Agartala Bench and registered as Criminal Original Petition (Contempt) No. 1 of 1989. 2. The case was thereafter transferred to Agartala Bench and registered as Criminal Original Petition (Contempt) No. 1 of 1989. 2. The respondents after receipt of notice have shown cause by filing affidavits-in-opposition. The report submitted by the then SDJM Sbri Das Choudhury substantially corroborates the allegations published in the news paper 'Daily Desher Katha' in its issue dated 28.5.88. The respondent No. 1 in his affidavit-in-opposition has denied the allegation to have interferred with the judicial proceeding and/or administration of justice. Respondent No. 1 in his affidavit-in-opposition has stated that he had been a practising advocate at the Agartala Bar after getting LL.B. degree from Calcutta University and he was deeply connected with the judiciary as an Advocate and has all along been associated with public life of Tripura and that being a member of legal profession, he believed in the independence of judiciary and has greatest respect for the judiciary in the country, and that it was inconceivable that as a responsible Minister of the State, he would in any manner interfere with due course of judicial proceeding and/or administration of justice. According to the respondent No.l, the allegations made against him in the news item published in the 'Daily Desher Katha'in its issue dated 28.5.88 were made at the instance of his political rival with the sole object to malign him before the public. In paras 11 and 12 of the affidavit-in-opposition showing cause, the respondent No.l has stated as follows : "11. That again on 19.5.88 sometime in the morning, I received another complaint against Shri Das Choudhury. In the said complaint verious allegations were made against Shri Das Choudhury in respect of his alleged involvement in politics and hob-nobbing with local leaders of Communist Party of India (Marxist). In the said complaint some specific instances of his corrupt activities were also mentioned. The complaint further mentioned that the public of Sonamura were very much agitated because of such activities of Shri Das Choudhury. On perusal of the said complaint, I thought it prudent to have the version of Shri Das Choudhury as regards the allegations appearing in the complaint and for that purpose, request was sent to Shri Das Choudhury to meet me at Agartala on 20.5.88. This course,! thought, would he proper before forwarding the said complaint to the Hon'ble High Court. On perusal of the said complaint, I thought it prudent to have the version of Shri Das Choudhury as regards the allegations appearing in the complaint and for that purpose, request was sent to Shri Das Choudhury to meet me at Agartala on 20.5.88. This course,! thought, would he proper before forwarding the said complaint to the Hon'ble High Court. On that very day I was informed by the Officer-in-charge of Sonamura Police Station that Shri Das Choudhujy was not in a position to meet me unless permitted by the learned District Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, on my request learned District Judge was kind enough to meet me and there I told him the gist of the two complaints which I received against Shri Das Choudhury. I further told him that I wanted to know the version of Shri Das Choudhury before taking any decision to refer the matter to the Hon'ble Court. After coming to know about the matter, learned District Judge told me that he was due to go to Sonamura on 20.5.88 in connection with some other matter. At that time learned District Judge would inform Shri Das Choudhury about the matter. The learned District Judge informed me that it would be possible on his part to leave for Sonamura in the early morning of 20.5.88 provided a vehicle was made available in the early morning stating that his own official vehicle was not in a fit condition to undertake the long journey and his driver would not report for duty before 10 AM. Accordingly, a vehicle was made available at the residence of the learned District Judge at about 7 AM of 20.5.88. 12. That Shri Das Choudhury met me in my official chamber on 20 5.88 at about noon time and at that time I narrated to him the gist of the allegations made against him in the complaint received. Be it stated that in the said complaint allegation was also made about the public demand regarding the custody of a motor chassis. At my request the learned District Judge came to my official chamber and was present during the later part of the discussion held with Shri Das Choudhury. It is absolutely untrue and incorrect to state that during the course of the discussion I referred to orders passed in connection with the custody of the chassis. At my request the learned District Judge came to my official chamber and was present during the later part of the discussion held with Shri Das Choudhury. It is absolutely untrue and incorrect to state that during the course of the discussion I referred to orders passed in connection with the custody of the chassis. As Shri Das Choudhury was required to return to Sonamura urgently, an official vehicle was provided for his return journey." 3. In paras 13, 14 and 15 the respondent No. 1 denied all other allegations made in the report of Shri Das Choudhury. The statements made by the respondent No. 1 in paragraphs 11,12 and 13 are more or less corroborated by the respondent No. 2 in his affidavit-in-opposition. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that there was no judicial proceeding before the SDJM Shri DK Das Choudhury, which alleged to have been interfered with by respondent No. 1 and 2. The allegations centered round interference in the proceeding of Criminal Misc Case No. 8 of 1988 registered in the Court of learned Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, inasmuch as, the allegations contained in the news item published in the 'Daily Desher Katha' as well as the report of Shri DK Das Choudhury, SDJM was that the respondent No. 1 compelled him to pass order to stay his earlier order dated 17.5.88 namely, asking the OC Melaghar Police Outpost to handover the bus chassis to Shri Humayun Kabir, President Melaghar Motor Sramik Samabai Samity. 4. 4. Sub-section (c) of section 2 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, defined criminal contempt as follows : "(c) 'Criminal Contempt' means the publication (whether by words; spoken or written or by signs, or by visible representations, or otherwise) or any matter of the doing of any other Act whatsover which (i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize or lower 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) interfere or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner ; " So, the allegations on the basis of which that proceeding under the Contempt of Court Act has been initiated is interference or tending to interfere with the due course of judicial proceeding or interference or tending to interfere or obstructing or tending to interfere with the administration of justice. Before entering into merit, it is to be decided whether the proceedings of Criminal Misc Case No. 8 of 1988 is a judicial proceeding or not. 5. We have perused the original records of Criminal Misc Case No. 8 of 1988. The case was registered on the basis of an application made by one Humayun Kabir, President Melaghar Motor Paribahan Sramik Samabai Samiti on 9.5.88 before the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sonamura, West Tripura. In para 4 of the application it is stated as follows :- “4. That on the sanction of the loan by the Bank the petitioner purchased on 20.1.88 a Tata Chassis Model LP 1210E/52 Chassis No. 3440502 64421 Engine No.692 D232 72073, year of manufacture 1987 for Rs. 2,51,114.81. The money receipt was granted by the authorised dealer and the bus chassis was delivered to your petitioner. Your petitioner after taking delivery of the bus chassis felt some inconvenience and insecurity about the keeping of the bus chassis and as such your petitioner kept the bus chassis within the Thana premises of the OP No.2. The said bus chassis was kept for the preservation of the bus chassis in security. After some days on 4.4.88 your petitioner went to the OP No.2 and told him that your petitioner liked to take back the bus chassis earlier kept in deposit. But the OP No.2 did not allow the petitioner to take back the said bus chassis. The said bus chassis was kept for the preservation of the bus chassis in security. After some days on 4.4.88 your petitioner went to the OP No.2 and told him that your petitioner liked to take back the bus chassis earlier kept in deposit. But the OP No.2 did not allow the petitioner to take back the said bus chassis. Your petitioner was bewildered and could not understand the reason in not allowing the taking back of the said bus chassis. The OP also did pot disclose anything in writing about the reason in not allowing the taking back of the bus chassis. The bus chassis was deposited to the OP No.2 for safe and secured preservation of the bus chassis. The bus chassis is illegally detained by the OP No.2 and because of the same the petitioner has been suffering loss of payment of interest @ 13% per annum with penalty provision of 1% more on default. The interest per day comes at Rs.96.32, The OP No.2 has no right to refuse to allow to take back the bus chassis and/or to detain the same." In the application, the opposite parties are State of Tripura and the OC Melaghar PS. It is apparent from the contents of the application that there is no allegation of committing any offence under any -provision of the Indian Penal Code nor there is any material for initiation of a proceeding under any provision of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Sub-divisonal Judicial Magistrate. Substance of the statements made (ft the application that for the security reason the chassis was kept voluntarily with the OC Melaghar PS and after some time the applicant approached the OC Melaghar PS to take his chassis but the OC was not parting with the chassis. The chassis was not seized by the OC Melaghar in connection with a criminal case/proceeding. On going through the contents of application and the prayer made therein, we find that dispute involved did not fall within the ambit of administration of justice and judicial function of the SDJM to register and initiate the proceeding. The application ought not to have been entertained by the SDJM since it was neither a complaint for initiating criminal proceeding againgst the OC nor any other proceeding contemplated under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. The application ought not to have been entertained by the SDJM since it was neither a complaint for initiating criminal proceeding againgst the OC nor any other proceeding contemplated under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. Registration of Criminal Misc Case No.8 of 1988 on consideration of the application was not warranted and the learned SDJM acted illegally and without jurisdiction in registering the Misc Case No.8 of 1988. We find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents that the proceedings in Criminal Misc Case No.8 of 1988 was not a judicial proceeding inasmuch as, registration of the case on the basis of the application made by one Humayun Kabir, did not fall within the ambit of administration of justice and judicial function of the 1 arned SDJM, On the ortherhand, we find that long silence of the SDJM is unusual and inexplicable.If undue influence or threat of the respondent No.1 in the presence of the respondent No. 2 resulted in passing of the order dated 20.5.88 in Criminal Misc Case No 8 of 1988, normally Shri Das Choudhury would have reported the matter to the Registrar of the High Court without loss of time for appropriate action. But, Shri Das Choudhury being asked to submit a report, for the first time, narrated the allegations in his report after the allegations had been published in the news paper. The order dated 20.5.88 passed in Misc Case No.8 of 1988 allegedly passed under pressure from the respondents is as follows :- “20.5.88 : The OC SNM PS, the OC MLG OP and Ld APP Sri M.Mia, submitted three applications separately. The contents of the three applications are almost the same. It is submitted that the petitioner, the Melaghar Motor Sramik Samabay Samity Ltd has been declared defunct by the Govt of Tripura vide its notification No.2/939/Rgh/Co.op/78 and therefore if the chassis in issue released in favour of the petitioner, the interest of the Government will seriously be hampered. Besides the OC MLG OP also submitted that if the chassis in issue is released in favour of the petitioner, there is every likelihood of breach of peace. So, it is prayed for stay of the compliance of order dated 17.5.88 and to maintain status quo. Learned APP also forwarded the RG of the Home Deptt Govt of Tripura in support of his contention. So, it is prayed for stay of the compliance of order dated 17.5.88 and to maintain status quo. Learned APP also forwarded the RG of the Home Deptt Govt of Tripura in support of his contention. On call, Sri N.Bhakta learned counsel for the petitioner appeared Heard both the sides. Considering the gravity of the circumstances I order that the order dated 17.5.88 asking the OC, MLG OP to release the chassis in issue in favour of the petitioner, Sri Humayun Kabir Pres' dent Melaghar Motor Sramik Samity Ltd is stayed until further order if the order in issue has not been complied with earlier. Inform the OC, SNM PS and the OC, MLG OP accordingly. The OC MLG OP is however asked to furnish all relevant papers the next date fixed 30.5.88.” 6. From the order it does not appear that same was passed under duress The order was passed after hearing both the parties. Record of the case do not disclose anything about putting pressure on Shri Das Choudhury. Shri Das Choudhury also did not make any report to the appropriate authority Ie Registrar of the High Court or to the Hon'ble Chief Justice about exercise of undue pressure by the respondent No. \ as published in the news paper How the press or Shri Nripen Chakraborty, leader of the opposition could come to know about the alleged exercise of undue pressure on the SDJM b the respondents to pass the order dated 20.5.88 in Criminal Misc Case No 8 of 1988, is beyond our comprehension. Unless the allegations were disclosed by the SDJM the opposition leader or the press could not have normally known the same, inasmuch as why and how the order dated 20 5 88 was passed,was within the exclusive knowledge of the SDJM(Shri Das Choudhury) 7. Shri RB Sinha, the then District Judge, West Tripura, a senior member of the subordinate juniciary has not supported the contentions of Shri Das Choudhury. He has categorically denied that he had told Shri Das Choudhury to pass order to maintain status quo. 8. Shri RB Sinha, the then District Judge, West Tripura, a senior member of the subordinate juniciary has not supported the contentions of Shri Das Choudhury. He has categorically denied that he had told Shri Das Choudhury to pass order to maintain status quo. 8. We find it difficult to place complete reliance on the statements made by Shri Das Choudhury in his report, inasmuch as, (i) he did not report the same to the Registrar of High Court, but strange enough the allegations were published in the press, (ii) the allegations are denied by the senior member of the subordinate judiciary, whose statements are consistent and cannot be brushed aside. For the reasons stated above, we are inclined to hold that a case of commmitting contempt of Court has not been found against the repondents. The proceedings is, therefore, dropped.