JUDGMENT Radha Mohan Prasad, J. The two Original Miscellaneous bearing No. 13 and 14 of 1995 have arisen from Cr. Misc. No. 13618 of 1994, which has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner Chandra Mouleshwar Singh for grant of anticipatory bail, in Madhubani Town P.S. Case No. 0176/94 dated 10.6.1994 registered under Section 420, 467 and 471, IPC, which is pending in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani as G.R. Case No. 986 of 1994. 2. With consent of the parties, as all the three matters have been heard together, they are being disposed of by this common judgment/order. 3. According to the prosecution, the allegation against the petitioner, who was Nazir in Khajauli Anchal, is that two bills bearing No. 12/94-95 and 13/94-95 for Rs. 22,144/- and Rs. 15,727/- respectively to salary of the employees of the said Anchal were entrusted to him for getting it passed from Treasury and encasing the same from the State Bank of India. It is alleged that the petitioner raised the amount of the said bills to Rs. 32,144/- and Rs. 25,727/- respectively by making interpolation and presented the same in the Treasury. The said bills were however, passed by the Treasury but the forgery was detected by the Bank authority, who informed the Anchal Adhikari, on whose report the present case was instituted against the petitioner. 4. The Sessions Judge, while rejecting the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, held that he was Custodian of the bills which were forged. Thus, the logical inference can be drawn that the petitioner forged initial signature of Anchal Adhikari on both the bills. Further, it appears from the impugned order of the Sessions Judge that in the investigation the guilt of the petitioner had been prima facie established. Accordingly, the Sessions Judge rejected the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, where after the present case was filed. 5. On 16.9.1994, on the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that without getting the handwriting examined there is no material to come to the conclusion that in the copy of the Treasury Challan alterations were made by the petitioner and no one else and. 5. On 16.9.1994, on the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that without getting the handwriting examined there is no material to come to the conclusion that in the copy of the Treasury Challan alterations were made by the petitioner and no one else and. further, that with a view to ascertain the authorship of the writing on the Treasury Challan, the I.O. ought to have got the writing compared with the handwriting of the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, the Assistant Incharge and also the Hon'ble Judge hearing the anticipatory bail application directed to request the I.O. to take immediate steps in that direction and to submit a report to this Court within four weeks. The application was directed to be considered thereafter and, in the meantime, an interim order was passed that in the event of arrest or surrender, the petitioner shall be enlarged on bail subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2), Cr. P. C. 6. Since thereafter the matter came up for admission on several dates but, in the absence of the report, the matter was adjourned either awaiting report or reminder was directed to be issued for submission of the report and, in the meantime, the interim order was continued by order passed on 18-11-1994, 17-1-1995 and 22-2-1995. On 24.4.1995 when this matter came up before me for the first time, considering the non-co-operation of the Director, Handwriting Expert, Bihar, Patna I directed him to immediately complete the verification, as requested by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Madhubani who in his report dated 21-3-1995 has stated that the signatures of the informant, accused and incharge Clerk had been sent to the Director, Hand-writing Expert for verification and the said report had not been received. The Director was required to submit the report within a week from the date of a copy of the said order. 7. On 10-5-1995, when no report was submitted by the Director; Handwriting Expert, Bihar even after expiry of the time fixed by the Court, notice was issued to him to show cause as to why a proceeding for contempt of this Court be not initiated for non-compliance of the aforementioned order. 7. On 10-5-1995, when no report was submitted by the Director; Handwriting Expert, Bihar even after expiry of the time fixed by the Court, notice was issued to him to show cause as to why a proceeding for contempt of this Court be not initiated for non-compliance of the aforementioned order. On the next date a show cause was filed on behalf of the Director, Police Laboratory, C.I.D. Bihar Patna in which it was stated that the order dated 24.4.1995 was received by him on 5th May, 1995 and on 6th May, 1995 he sent a letter, vide Memo No. 107, addressed to the Assistant Registrar (Criminal) of this Court, explaining as to why required examination was not done by him and, thus, no report could be submitted. It was also stated that the letter dated 6-5-1995 was received in this Court on 6-5-1995. As in that regard there was nothing on the record of the case, an explanation was called for from the Assistant Registrar (Criminal). The Assistant Registrar (Criminal), in his explanation dated 25-5-1995 placed at flag 'Y' stated that the said letter had not yet been received in this Court and, as such, the same could not be attached to the record. 8. As the Director had not produced any evidence in support of the receipt, he was directed to produce the evidence, pursuant to which the Director submitted a supplementary show cause along with which he produced a photo copies of the extract to the despatch register and receipt granted by the Receiving. Officer of this Court, as contained in Annexures E and E/1 (Which is dated 6-5-1995.) In view of the photo copies of the despatch register and the receipt produced by the Director, I do not feel inclined to take any action against the Director for non-compliance of the order dated 24.4.1995 to the extent that he at least in response to the said order, informed this Court the circumstance under which he could not submit report, but, however, the fact remains that no report, as directed by order dated 16-9-1994, was submitted. 9. 9. From the letter of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, to which a photo copy of the petition of the I.O. had also been attached, it appeared that in November, 1994 the accused petitioner, who was granted the privilege of interim bail vide order dated 16-9-94, did not appear before the Officer-in-Charge, Madhubani Town P.S. or before the concerned police station for giving his specimen signature. On 22-5-1995, on the oral submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that in fact, the petitioner had approached the concerned Officer-in-Charge since he was granted the privilege of interim bail but, because of non availability and/or inaction of the concerned Officer-in-Charge/ I.O. the specimen signature was not taken he was directed to bring the said facts on the record by filing supplementary affidavit on behalf of the petitioner which was filed on 26.5.1995. In the said supplementary affidavit it is stated that the aforementioned report letter of the Officer-in-Charge attached to the report of the C.J.M. contains false and frivolous allegation without any basis. As a matter of fact, after obtaining interim bail on 5-10-1994, the petitioner made several attempts to meet the I.O. at the Police Station but every time the I.O. was not available and the petitioner was told that the I.O. was on leave. It is also stated that the Officer-in-Charge was not the I.O. of the case and that he never contacted the petitioner nor took any step or action in this case. The said period covered Durga Puja, Diwali and Chhath festivals and hence the petitioner waited but, ultimately, on 14-11-1994, he filed a petition before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madubani stating that on several dates he went to Police Station to find out about the I.O. but be learnt that he was on leave and, accordingly, he requested the Chief Judicial Magistrate as to whom he should give signature, A photo copy of the certified copy of the said petition has been annexed as Annexure 2 to the supplementary affidavit. 10. From perusal of the said petition, I find that there is nothing mentioned as to on what dates the petitioner went to the Police Station when he was told that the I,O, was on leave. Since after his release on interim bail on 5-10-1994, it appears that for the first time on 13-11-1994 the petitioner took any step for getting his signature verified. Since after his release on interim bail on 5-10-1994, it appears that for the first time on 13-11-1994 the petitioner took any step for getting his signature verified. It is true that the Chief Judicial Magistrate was directed to request the I.O. to get the writing on the treasury challan compared with the hand writing of the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, the Assistant Incharge and also the petitioner, but, in my opinion, once the petitioner on surrender got himself released on interim bail, he also ought to have made his sincere efforts to get the writing on the treasury challan compared with the handwriting of the persons as mentioned in the order dated 16-9-1994 and not slept over the matter for more than a month after getting the benefit or the interim order. 11. From the show cause of the Director, Police Laboratory it appears that the documents were, for the first time, received in the Police Laboratory on 3-12-1994 for examination and report. As there was no proper specimen and documents were returned by the same Messenger, vide office letter No. 369 dated 3-12-1994 with instruction to send 6 to 10 sheets containing elaborate existing genuine initials and signatures in the scripts Again the documents were received on 20.1.1995 in the Police Laboratory from the I.O. but without required specimen. Again the documents were returned on the same date with instruction through the same Messenger, Since thereafter the documents had not been received in the Police Laboratory, when the affidavit of the show cause was sworn by the Director on 19.5.1995. 12. In the aforementioned supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, it is, however, stated that on 19.11.1994, the I.O. appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and thereafter the petitioner gave his specimen writing and signatures on three consecutive dates, i.e., on 21, 22 and 23 November, 1994 before the designated Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, the I.O. also took the specimen signatures of other concerned persons on the same dates but after the petitioner. 13. Thereafter, the I.O. also took the specimen signatures of other concerned persons on the same dates but after the petitioner. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the show cause of the Director, Police Laboratory shows that the correct specimen signature of the informant was wanting both times; once in December and again in January, 1995 and accordingly, the documents were returned for proper specimen whereas the I.O. in his application dated 21.3.1995, addressed to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, which has been forwarded to this Court by the C.J.M., through letter No. 57 dated 21.3.1995, shows that the specimen signature of the informant had been sent for the third time on some date after its return in January, 1995. (The letter of the I.O. dated 21.3.1995 has been filed by the I.O. as Annexure G to his show cause.), Accordingly, it was submitted by the learned, counsel for the petitioner that either the I.O. or the Director, Police Laboratory is making false statement before this Court in order to cover up their lapses. 14. On consideration of the said facts and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, prima facie it was found that there was some dilly-dallying tactics being adopted by both the officers for the reasons best known to them. However, at the request of the learned counsel appearing for the Director, by order dated 26.5.95, two weeks time was granted for filing further show cause explaining the aforementioned circumstances and, in the meantime, notice was also issued to the I.O. of the case as to why a proceeding in contempt be not initiated against him and as to why he be not punished for his intentional attempt to circumvent the order of this Court communicated to him through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani. 15. Pursuant to the said order show cause was filed on behalf of the I.O. and a supplementary show cause on behalf of the Director, Police Laboratory, C.I.D. Bihar, Patna, from perusal whereof on being prima facie satisfied that they intentionally attempted to circumvent the direction of this Court in furnishing the report after comparing the writing over the Treasury Challan with the handwriting of the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, as directed by order dated 16.9.1994 of this Court a proceeding in contempt was initiated against them which have been registered as Original Cr. Misc. Misc. No. 13 and 17 of 1995. The said contemnors were directed to file their further show cause in the contempt matter on or before 15th July, 1995 and the matter was directed to be listed for final hearing on 17th July, 1995 when they were directed to be personally present in Court. 16. On 17.7.1995, as the contempt matters were listed under wrong heading for admission, it was directed to be listed under proper heading "for hearing" on 18.7.1995 along with the connected Cr. Misc. case, as was also agreed by the learned counsel appearing for all the parties. On 18.7.1995, the matter was heard in the presence of the contemnors, who despite repeated queries did not express any desire to have any further opportunity for their defence or to lead any evidence or to examine any witness, the hearing was concluded and the matter was directed to be listed for judgment on 21st August, 1995 when both the contemnors were direct to remain present in Court. 17. In the show cause filed on behalf of contemnor Nagendra Mishra, the I.O, of the case it is stated that vide letter No. 849 dated 11-11-1994, the Chief-Judicial Magistrate directed the Officer-in-Charge, Madhubani P. S. to get the specimen of the handwriting of the concerned persons and to submit the same as per the direction of this Court. After receipt of the said letter, the Officer-in-Charge informed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, vide his letter dated 12-11-94 that the I.O of the case is on leave and he is likely to Join the service by 16-11-94 and that after his return the direction would be complied. On 21-11-1994 the I.O. requested the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani for deputation of any competent Magistrate in whose presence the signature of the concerned persons would be taken. Thereafter, one of the learned Magistrate was deputed and specimen of the signatures of all the concerned persons were taken in his presence, and the same was submitted before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, after whose endorsement, it was sent to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Bihar, Patna, vide D.R No. 941 dated 26.11-1994. It is further stated that on returned back of the said documents from the Director Forensic Science Laboratory, more copies of the signatures as required by the Director was again sent by the I.O. vide his letter dated 19-1-1995. It is further stated that on returned back of the said documents from the Director Forensic Science Laboratory, more copies of the signatures as required by the Director was again sent by the I.O. vide his letter dated 19-1-1995. But again the documents wise returned back asking him to send the specimen of short signature of one Rakesh Mohan similar to that of the disputed signature, It is alleged that the I.O, personally met said Rakesh Mohan on various dates and tried to persuade him to put his short signature similar to that of the disputed signature but he was not ready to put his short signature and had not given it till date. However, the I.O. claimed that he obtained his short signature similar to that of the disputed signature from the office of the said Rakesh Mohan from cancelled bill. In the mean time, letter No. 41 dated 10-3-1995 issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani was received by the officer-in-Charge, Madhubani P.S. by which he was reminded for compliance of this Court's order. 18. In paragraph 10 the I.O. has taken the plea that he was otherwise busy in election duty of the Bihar Legislative Assembly and thus, he could despatch the documents to the Director, Forensic Science, vide despatch No. 175/95 dated 29-3-1995. It is further stated that the said documents were sent to the inspector-cum-Officer-in-Charge Madhubani town P.S. for deputing a Constable for service. A photo copy of the said letter has been annexed as Annexure F to his show cause, from perusal whereof I do not find in it to indicate that any such request was made to the Officer in Charge, Moreover, it was the responsibility of the I.O. to have send the said documents directly to the Director, Police Laboratory. 19. The I.O. in his show cause has also claimed to have reported the matter to the learned CJM, Madhubani, vide letter dated 21.3.1995, a photo copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure G. In the said letter also there is nothing to indicate that the document despatched to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Bihar, vide despatch No. 170/95 dated 20.3.1995 was sent to the Inspector-cum-Officer-in-Charge, Madhubani Town P.S. for deputing a constable for service. In fact, the said letter mentions about the earlier two despatches made on 26.11.1994 and 19.1.1995 and further states that after obtaining the new signature of the informant, the documents have again been sent for investigation to the Director, Handwriting Expert, Bihar, Patna, whose report is not received. It is further stated that immediately after the receipt of the report, the same shall be submitted to the Chief Judicial Magistrate as well as to this Court for perusal. A request was also made for grant of time in the case awaiting receipt of the report. 20. I find it most surprising that if the despatch of the documents was shown to have been made on 20th March, 1995, which is claimed to have been sent to the Inspector-cum- Officer-in Charge, Madhubani Town P. S. for deputing a Constable for service, how the I.O. has written in his letter to the CJM (Annexure G) on the very next date i.e., on 21.3.1995 that again documents had been sent to the Director and, further, that report has not been received. 21. From the second show cause filed on behalf of the I.O. it appears that the documents which were stated to have been despatched by the I.O., side despatch No. 170/95 dated 23.3.1995, never reached the office of the Director, Police Laboratory. However, further it appears that after the contempt proceeding was initiated against him, vide order dated 28.6.1995 passed in the connected criminal miscellaneous application, the required documents were submitted by him before the Director, Police Laboratory, CID, Bihar, Patna on 7.7.1995. 22. Moreover, despite the fact being quite within the knowledge of the I.O. that the matter has been lingering since long and the anticipatory bail application could not be disposed of only on account of non-furnishing of the report, yet he did not take any step to obtain the required specimen signatures for more than two months since after the return of the documents from the Director on 20.1.1995 till 10th March, 1995 and the only plea taken is that he was otherwise busy in election duty of the Bihar Legislative Assembly. 23. 23. I fail to appreciate the said attitude of the I.O. who appears to be least concerned about compliance of the direction of this Court for the reasons best known to him and has only attempted to make ipse dixit statement with a view to cover up his gross lapses in not complying with the direction of this Court The manner in which he has taken up the directions of this Court dearly indicates his intention not to respect the orders of this Court and, thus, I am satisfied that the I.O. is guilty of commission of contempt of Court as his action tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice. However, considering the unqualified apology tendered by him in his show cause, he is sentenced with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand) to be deposited in this Court within a week, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for seven days. 24. Contemnor Kulendra Prasad Verma, Director, Police Laboratory, C.I.D. Bihar, Patna, besides giving his explanation in compliance of this Court order dated 24-4-1995, stated that even after initiation of a contempt proceeding against him and the I.O of the case on 28-6-1995, no document as was required for examination and the report regarding the disputed signatures was made available to him. He after anxiously waiting for a few days sent a wireless message to the Superintendent of Police. Madhubani for information to the Officer-in-Charge, Madhubani Town P.S requesting therein for sending the documents as urgently needed for examination and report, photo copy of the said wireless message has been annexed as Annexure I to the show cause. Only thereafter on 7-7-1995 he received the documents from the I.O, forwarded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani, Thereafter the disputed signatures with the specimen signatures were examined and a report was prepared. On the request of the I.O. for taking back the documents and report, they were handed over to the I.O. vide Memo No. 155 dated 12-7-1995 a photo copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure L and a photo copy of the receipt of the I.O. has been annexed as Annexure M. Accordingly it is submitted that the delay in submission of the report was never intentional and/or due to any laches on his part Further, in paragraph 19 he has offered unqualified and unconditional apology and has prayed for discharge of the rule. 25. 25. From the facts aforementioned, I am satisfied that there was no intention of the Director not to comply with the order of this Court and or to delay the submission of the report by him. Thus, he cannot be held to be party for committing contempt of this Court. Accordingly show cause filed on his behalf is accepted and the proceeding in contempt against him is dropped and the rule is discharged. 26. Perused the report submitted by the Chief State Examiner and the State Examiner of Questioned Document, Police Laboratory C.I.D., Bihar, Patna. Which has been forwarded by the Director, Police Laboratory and is placed al flag 'X' 27. As the trial of the case is yet to commence, I do not consider it appropriate to express any opinion on the said report as that may one way or the other prejudice the trial. However, as from the order of the Sessions Judge it appears that there was interpolation made in regard to the amount of the bills which were entrusted to the petitioner got the said bills passed from the Treasury and submitted the same in the Bank for encashment, I prima-facie find it difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had no hand in the alleged offence. 28. Thus, considering the allegation against the petitioner, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail to him. The prayer is, accordingly, rejected and the criminal miscellaneous petition is, thus dismissed. The petitioner, namely Chandra Mouleshwar Singh, is directed to surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate within two weeks from today in connection with Madhubani Town P. S. Case No. 0178/84 dated 19-6-1994, with the liberty to move the court below for his release on regular bail for which if any prayer is made, the Court below shall consider the same on the basis of the materials available on the record afresh and without being prejudicated by the dismissal of this application if possible on the same day. 29. All the three matters are, accordingly, disposed of Let the report at flag 'X' be forwarded to the court below for needful. Application disposed of accordingly.