JUDGMENT : 1. The office report shows that notice was issued to all the respondents and that certificate of service in respect of all the respondents has been sent. So far as the first respondent is concerned, the office report says that since he was stated to be out of Imphal for a long time, the notice was served upon his sister - Kh. Sony Devi. We treat this service as sufficient upon the first respondent. 2. The appellants have filed additional affidavits in Court. The same are taken on record. 3. These three appeals are preferred under Section 19 of the Contempt of courts Act, 1971. The appellants are the then Chief Secretary (Home) Government of Manipur and the District Magistrate Thoubal District in the State of Manipur. The Gauhati High Court has found them guilty of Contempt of Court and has sentenced each of them to simple imprisonment of two months and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. The gravamen of the charge is that the first respondent Kh. Brojen Singh was detained under the provisions of National Security Act. He filed a writ of Habeas Corpus which was allowed by the Gauhati High Court on 7.9.1995 and the detention order quashed. No request was made for staying the operation of the said order nor was any such stay granted. Even so, the first respondents was not released, in spite of the fact that on 5.10.1995, the respondent's counsel addressed a letter to the authorities calling upon them to release the first respondent forthwith in view of the orders of the Court. It appears that the first respondent was not released in view of the fact that the Government of Manipur was contemplating to file a special leave petition in this Court against the order of the High Court quashing the said detention order. In fact such a special leave petition was Filed on 11.10.1995 and was dismissed on 4.11.1995. Seventeen days later, i.e. on 21.11.1995, the first respondent was released from custody. It is then that he moved against the three appellants herein for Contempt of Court. The High Court has found that keeping the first respondent in detention, in spite of the orders of the High Court quashing the order of his detention, is a serious inroad on the liberty of the first respondent and accordingly found the appellants guilty of contempt. The High Court has found that keeping the first respondent in detention, in spite of the orders of the High Court quashing the order of his detention, is a serious inroad on the liberty of the first respondent and accordingly found the appellants guilty of contempt. It appears that the appellants tendered unconditional apology before the High Court, but the said affidavits did not commend themselves to the High Court. The High Court has, however, not found that any of the appellants had any personal animus or malice against the first respondent. The only finding against him, which is undoubtedly a serious encroachment on the liberty of the first respondent, is that he was not released from custody in spite of the orders of the High Court dated 7.9.1995. When the appeals came up for hearing before us, all the three appellants have again filed additional affidavits stating that they were amiss in their legal responsibility in not releasing the first respondent as soon as the High Court ordered the release of the first respondent but it was all under a bona fide mis-appreciation of legal position. It is stated that they sought the opinion of the legal department in the matter and they were under the impression that since they were approaching this Court against the order dated 7.9.1995, the first respondent need not be released. 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the affidavits of unconditional apology filed before the High Court as well as before us and also taking into consideration the fact that there is no allegation of any personal animosity or malice on the part of any of the appellants, we are of the opinion, that the ends of justice would be met by deleting the sentence of imprisonment. We, however, affirm the imposition of fine. The amounts, if not already paid, shall be deposited within four weeks. The mounts shall be paid over to the first respondent and in case the first respondent is not to be found, as is suggested by the learned counsel for the appellants, the said amount shall be paid to his parents and to his children and in the absence of either, to his sister - Kh. Sony Devi, upon whom notice in these appeals was served. 5. The appeals are allowed in part in the above terms.