Judgment Nagendra Rai, J. 1. Both the matters i. e. Ori Cr. Misc. No.25/96 and Cr. W. J. C. No.406/96 are connected matters and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The criminal writ jurisdiction case was filed by the petitioner (Smt. Girja Devi)for a direction to the Officer Incharge, Barbigha Police Station to release the Maruti Van bearing No. DIX-189 which was seized by the police on 12-8-95 and with regard to which a case was registered on 21-8-95 being barbigha P. S. Case No.129/95 under section 414, I. P. C. , against unknown. 3. In the said case the petitioner (Smt. Girja Devi) claiming herself to be the owner of the said Maruti Van having purchased from M/s Chhabra Auto Deal karolbagh New Delhi filed an application before the Addl. Chief Judicial magistrate, Sheikhpura, on 25-8-95 for release of the vehicle upon which a notice was issued to the Officer-In- charge, Barbigha Police Station. On 30th August, 95 after hearing the parties and after perusal of the report submitted by the officer-Incharge of Barbigha Police Station the Addl. Chief judicial Magistrate ordered for release of the vehicle on furnishing security bond of Rs.20,00,00/- with one surety of the like amount. The writ petitioner furnished the security bond and the release order was also issued on the same date i. e.30th. Aug. , 1995. On 2-9-95 the writ petitioner filed an application that in spite of the order of the Court the vehicle is not being released to her. The addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate issued show-cause notice to the Officer-in-charge, Barbigha, as to why a contempt of court proceeding be not initiated. Thereafter, instead of releasing the vehicle on 4-9-95 a petition was filed by the Officer-Incharge for permission to examine the aforesaid vehicle by Forensic Science Laboratory. The said petition was ordered to be kept on the record. In the meantime, again the writ petitioner moved the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate on 15-9-95 for release of the vehicle. The Addl. Chief Judicial magistrate having found himself into helplessness condition called for a report from the Officer-Incharge as to whether the vehicle has been released or not. Again on 24-11-95 a prayer was made to get the vehicle examined by the forensic Science Laboratory and the court allowed the prayer. The Addl. Chief Judicial magistrate having found himself into helplessness condition called for a report from the Officer-Incharge as to whether the vehicle has been released or not. Again on 24-11-95 a prayer was made to get the vehicle examined by the forensic Science Laboratory and the court allowed the prayer. On 29-2-96 when the vehicle was not released this poor lady again approached the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate for release of the vehicle and explanation was called for from the Officer Incharge concerned. In the meantime, on 2-3-96 report from the Forensic Science laboratory was received and on 11-3-96 matter of release of the vehicle was again heard and the Addl. Chief Judicial magistrate by order dated 12-3-96 again reiterated his earlier order and a direction was issued to the Officer-Incharge to release the vehicle in question at once otherwise he will be held responsible for disobedience. But the said direction was not complied with. Thereafter the petitioner has approached this court by filing the aforesaid writ application. 4. This Court after having taken note of the entire ordersheets of the addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the Superintendent of Police to see that the vehicle in question is released within 24 hours from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and the learned Counsel for the petitioner states that in pursuance of this order the vehicle has been released to the petitioner. 5. This court after having taken note of the defiance attitude of the police officers initiated a contempt proceeding and issued show-cause notice to the three police officers, namely, Pramod Sharma who was Officer Incharge of barbigha Police Station from 9-8-94 to 13-10-95, Radhey shyam Singh who was Officer Incharge of Barbigha Police Station from 13-10-95 to 16-6-96 and Indrasan singh Investigating Officer who was posted in barbigha Police Station from 16-11-94 to 26-4-96 and was officer incharge of mission Outpost for some time. After having perused the show cause this court by order dated 3-9-96 initiated a contempt of Court proceeding against them and they have appeared and filed their show cause. 6. After having perused the show cause this court by order dated 3-9-96 initiated a contempt of Court proceeding against them and they have appeared and filed their show cause. 6. The show cause of Pramod Sharma, who was officer Incharge from 9-8-94 to 13-10-95, is that on 12-8-95 a raid was conducted jointly by Barbigha and kankarbagh Police in connection with kankarbagh P. S. Case No.338/1995 and the Maruti Van in question was found in the premises of Rita Silai Centre at Barbigha and the same was seized and was brought to the police station, Nobody came to claim the aforesaid vehicle and on the order of the Superintendent of police a case was registered on 21-8-95. It is also stated that some stolen motorcycles subject-matter of Hankarbagh police station were also recovered from the possession of son of the petitioner. He admits that the order of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 30th august, 95 was communicated to him and thereafter he made a prayer to get the vehicle examined by the Forensic science Laboratory as was ordered by the Supervising Authority and that petition was ordered by the Addl. Chief judicial Magistrate to be kept on the record and in the meantime he was transferred on 13-10-95. In paragraph 23 of the show cause he has also tendered an unqualified apology. 7. The show cause filed on behalf of Indrasan Singh is that he became Investigating Officer of the case of 5-1-96 and before that he had nothing to do with the case. It is also stated that when he took charge ot the case he found that there was an order of the Addl. Chief judicial Magistrate dated 24-11-95 to send the Maruti Van to the Forensic science laboratory and he sent the same to the Laboratory and received the report of the Laboratory on 15-2-96 and on 26-2-96 he sent the said report to the addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate sheikhpura. He also relied upon the letter dated 20-3-1996 of the Officer Incharge Radhey Shyam sent the same to the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate wherein it is stated that no one is coming to take the vehicle. He was posted at mission Out-Post as officer Incharge and according to him the petitioner never approached for release of the vehicle nor the then Officer Incharge ever gave direction on to release the vehicle in question. Chief Judicial Magistrate wherein it is stated that no one is coming to take the vehicle. He was posted at mission Out-Post as officer Incharge and according to him the petitioner never approached for release of the vehicle nor the then Officer Incharge ever gave direction on to release the vehicle in question. Thus, his stand is that he had no knowledge of the order of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate regarding release of the vehicle. He has in no way violated the direction of the court. He has also tendered his unqualified apology in his show cause in paragraph-18. 8. Radhey Shyam Singh who was officer Incharge of Barbigha Police Station from 13-10-95 to 16-6-96 has filed supplementary show cause and has adopted his show cause filed earlier. He has not denied the knowledge of the order of release of the vehicle but his stand is that no one came to receive the vehicle in question. He has specifically stated that Indrasan Singh Investigating officer was living in the same compound of the Barbigha police station and almost every day he as well as the earlier Officer Incharge asked the Investigating Officer to release the said vehicle in view of the Courts order but he did not release the same. On 17-4-96 he filed a petition before the Court informing that Indrasan Pd. Singh is the investigating Officer of the case. A copy of the said petition has been annexed to his show cause. He has also tendered unqualified apology in paragraph-7 of the show cause. 9. At the outset I may state that any conduct which has the effect of diminishing the prestige and the authority either this Court or any Court subordinate to the High Court which is likely to lower the prestige of the Court in the mind of the public and which gives an impression that the order of the court could be violated with impunity, would amount to contempt of Court. 10. In this case the first question to be considered is as to whether all the three petitioners have knowledge of the orders of release or not. If it is found that they had knowledge of the orders then it has to be seen as to whether they disobeyed the order intentionally as to make them liable for contempt of court. 11. If it is found that they had knowledge of the orders then it has to be seen as to whether they disobeyed the order intentionally as to make them liable for contempt of court. 11. The Officers Incharge Pramod sharma and Radhey Shyam both have admitted about the knowledge of the orders for release of the vehicle. So far indrasan Singh is concerned he was not the Officer Incharge of Barbigha Police station but he was the Investigating Officer of the case. Though, the direction was issued to the Officer Incharge to release the vehicle but it cannot be lost sight of the fact that he was the Investigating Officer of the case and if it is found that in spite of the knowledge of the Courts order he did not release the vehicle then he cannot escape from the charge of disobedience of the judicial order passed by the Court. In his show cause no doubt he, as stated above, has showed complete ignorance but it is difficult to swallow the explanation offered by him in the show cause. He was the investigating Officer of the case and Officer Incharge Radhey Shyam in his show cause has stated that the several times asked him to release the vehicle in pursuance of the order of the Court but he did not release the vehicle. There is no reason to disbelieve the aforesaid statement of Radhey Shyam especially when it appears that while considering the application of bail of the writ petitioner the Addl. Chief Judicial magistrate has clearly mentioned in his order that order of release of the vehicle in question has to be complied with by the Investigating Officer and the Officer incharge both. Thus, all the three contemnors have knowledge of the orders passed by the Addl. Chief Judicial magistrate for release of the vehicle. 12. Mr. Sadanand Jha who is appearing for Pramod Sharma contended that no doubt the order dated 30th august, 1995 for release of the vehicle was communicated to Pramod Sharma but once he filed an application to get the vehicle examined by the Forensic science Laboratory on 4-9-95, which remained pending, the earlier order of release will be treated to have been modified or stayed to that extent. This submission has to be rejected. This submission has to be rejected. Once order for release of the vehicle was passed unless that order is specifically stayed or modified by the Addl. Chief judicial Magistrate the Officer Incharge cannot disobey the order on the assertion that the order for release will be treated to have been stayed merely by filing an application for examination of the vehicle. Even after release of the vehicle the prayer of the police officer to send the vehicle to the Forensic science Laboratory could have been allowed but on that pretext the order of the A. C. J. M. cannot be disobeyed. His conduct amounts to deliberate and intentional disobedience and defiance of the order of the Addl. Chief Judicial magistrate. Admittedly, there was no modification of the order of release by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate but even then he did not release the vehicle. 13. So far Radhey Shyam is concerned, he became Officer Incharge on 13-10-95. He does not say that he had no knowledge of the earlier order of release. Even after his joining an order was again passed reiterating the earlier order for release of the vehicle but he did not release the vehicle. As such he also appears to be deliberately did not obey the order of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. 14. Coming to the case of Indrasan singh, who was the Investigating Officer from 5-1-96, it is to be staled that he was the Investigating Officer of the case and he sent the vehicle for examination before Forensic Science Laboratory and he after receiving the report from the laboratory submitted the same in the court so he cannot claim ignorance of the direction passed by the Addl. Chief judicial Magistrate especially in view of the definite assertion by the Officer that he communicated the order to him to release the vehicle. He also disobeyed the order of the Addl. Chief Judicial magistrate. His act is also intentional and not a bona fide one and as such he cannot escape from the facts that in spite of the knowledge of the order he did not release the vehicle to the writ petitioner on one pretext or the other. 15. The people will loose faith in the system if the judicial orders are not obeyed by any person however high and mighty he may be. 15. The people will loose faith in the system if the judicial orders are not obeyed by any person however high and mighty he may be. If the Police Officers, custodian of law and order, do not obey the order of the Subordinate Court then the administration of justice will suffer and people will have an impression that order of the Court would be disobeyed with impugnity by contrivance or by adopting stratagem. 16. Thus, in my considered view all the three officers in spite of the knowledge of the Courts order have deliberately and intentionally did not release the vehicle of the writ petitioner and the ground given by them not to release the vehicle is only a stratagem to get themselves released from the rigor of law. Accordingly, they are held to have deliberately disobeyed the order of the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate and are held guilty under Sec.12 of the contempt of Court Act. 17. Before deciding the question of sentence. I will first dispose of the writ application filed by the writ petitioner. The facts, as stated above, clearly demonstrates that she has been moving times without number before the Court and in spite of the order the vehicle was not released. Even according to the show cause filed by the contemnors entirely the writ petitioner was not an accused in the case. After release of the vehicle in her favour when she filed petition against the police officers before the Addl. Chief Judicial magistrate she was made an accused. The Lower Court granted her bail after noticing that there was no material against her. The conduct of the Investigating Officer and the officers Incharge in this case justifying award of compensation to the petitioner for the harassment and mental agony caused to her. Accordingly, all the three opposite parties are directed to deposit Rs.2,000 each by 13th November, 96 as compensation to be paid to the writ petitioner before the Addl. Chief judicial magistrate. On deposit of the aforesaid about the same should be paid to the writ petitioner by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. In case the aforesaid amount is not deposited the matter should be brought to the notice of this court for taking an appropriate action against them according to law. 18. Chief judicial magistrate. On deposit of the aforesaid about the same should be paid to the writ petitioner by the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate. In case the aforesaid amount is not deposited the matter should be brought to the notice of this court for taking an appropriate action against them according to law. 18. So far the question of sentence is concerned, as stated above, the acts of the contemnors are such as it amount to diminishing the prestige and authority of the Court. The apology tendered by them is half-hearted one. It is not a bonafide one and the same cannot be accepted especially when they have taken wholly unjustified ground to justify their conduct. 19. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that sentence of fine will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, each of the petitioners is directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 each. The same should be deposited in this Court within three weeks failing which they shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. However, this order will not effect the service career of the opposite parties (contemnors ). 20. With the aforesaid directions, both the applications, i. e. contempt application and the criminal writ application stand disposed of. Order Accordingly.