Baikunth Nath Dey v. State Of Bihar — 1998 DIGILAW 326 (PAT)

Judgment S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J. 1. In this writ application, one of the accused in the Land Acquisition Scam in the district of Hazaribagh, has prayed for issuance of a writ/direction for handing over the investigation of Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. Case No. 40/97 State v. Ram Dular Gupta, registered under Sections 403, 406, 420 read with Section 468 of the Indian Penal Code to the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short "C.B.I.") from the investigating agency of the State for a free and fair investigation of the said criminal case. 2. Factual matrix will highlight the situation which led the petitioner to move this Court. Some lands in Mouja Siyal, P.S. Ramgarh in he Hazaribagh district were acquired for the purpose of coal mining and other ancilliary works of Central Coalfield Ltd. on the basis of a notification dated 31.12.1981 which was published on 1.1.1982 and possession of lands was taken on 24.2.1982. Altogether 19 cases were tried analogously by the Land Acquisition Judge, Hazaribagh and were disposed of by a common judgment. Not being satisfied with the award, one Om Nath Sahu filed a petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act (shortly L.A. Act) giving rise to Land Reference Case-No. 28/86. Similarly, other awardees filed petitions and their cases were, though registered separately, but all were heard and disposed of by a common judgment dated 19.7.1990 enhancing the rate of compensation. Sri Gupta was a common lawyer for all such awardees. On 20.4.1995 said Om Nath Sahu made a complaint before the Land Acquisition Judge alleging, inter alia, that he had engaged Sri Ram Dular Gupta, Advocate of Hazaribagh to conduct his said Land Reference Case No. 28/86 on his behalf and said Ram Dular Gupta engaged Sri B.N. Dey (the present petitioner) as Senior Counsel on behalf of the awardee. It was agreed between Om Nath Sahu and Ram Dular Gupta that the fee of both the lawyers and the cost of the proceeding will be realised at the rate of 30% from the enhanced amount, if any. When the Land Acquisition Judge passed the judgment on 19.7.1990 said Sri Ram Dular Gupta received the entire amount from the Court on behalf of the awardee through bank draft of Union Bank of India, Pelawal Branch on 6.4.1991. The Court also informed the Bank for payment to the said Advocate, Sri Gupta. When the Land Acquisition Judge passed the judgment on 19.7.1990 said Sri Ram Dular Gupta received the entire amount from the Court on behalf of the awardee through bank draft of Union Bank of India, Pelawal Branch on 6.4.1991. The Court also informed the Bank for payment to the said Advocate, Sri Gupta. Interest of the awarded money to the tune of Rs. 6.00 lacs was also received from the Court by way of Bank draft by said Sri Ram Dular Gupta and he got the same encashed from the said Branch. After receiving the principal as well as interest amount the said Advocate kept the same in a fixed deposit in the said Bank after deducting fee and cost. However, Om Nath was kept in dark about said withdrawal and keeping the rest amount in FDR by Sri Gupta. In spite of several requests made by Om Nath for handing over the said amount to him after adjusting the amount towards fee and cost, said Sri Gupta did not oblige him and the awardee was constrained to send a pleaders notice through one Sri Gulam Zerani, Advocate of Hazaribagh on 6.9.1994 demanding payment of the awarded amount with interest. Though the said notice was received by Sri Gupta on 1.11.1994 but as no amount was paid to the awardee and on this account he made a request to the Land Acquisition Judge to direct Sri Gupta to make payment of the entire amount. On such complaint being received, a three-member fact-finding committee was constituted by the District Judge, Hazaribagh for going through the allegation levelled against Sri Gupta. This Committee was constituted on 9.9.1996 and, thereafter, through bank drafts and cheques dated 3.2.1997 said Sri Gupta paid 60% of the dues plus interest to the awardee. All these documents have been annexed by the petitioner in this writ application. Three-member committee gave its report on 20.1.1997 holding, inter alia, that said Sri Gupta did not pay Rs. 36.00 lacs to the awardees. The Committee was of the opinion that said Advocate Sri Gupta has criminally misappropriated and defalcated the awarded amount received by him from the Court on behalf of the awardees, Madhur Sahu, Om Nath Sahu, Jagu Sahu and others. 36.00 lacs to the awardees. The Committee was of the opinion that said Advocate Sri Gupta has criminally misappropriated and defalcated the awarded amount received by him from the Court on behalf of the awardees, Madhur Sahu, Om Nath Sahu, Jagu Sahu and others. On the basis of the said report, learned Sub-Judge No. 1, Hazaribagh lodged a FIR inter alia, informing the police that he also found a prima facie case of criminal misappropriation, defalcation of the money and criminal breach of trust against said Sri Gupta Sadar RS. Case No. 40/97 was registered against the said Advocate on 14.2.1997 under various Sections of the Penal Code. Certified copy of the FIR along with the enquiry report is Annexure 9. Sri Gupta, apprehending his arrest in the aforesaid case, moved the learned Sessions Judge Hazaribagh for grant of anticipatory bail but the prayer ws refused and by its order dated 18th March, 1997 Ram Dular Gupta was directed to surrender before the Court below within 10 days of the said order. Sri Gupta then approached this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 1797/97(R) with a prayer to quash the FIR and while issuing notice to the Investigating Officer (Opposite Party No. 2 in that case) interim protection was given to said Sri Gupta. The relevant portion of the order thus : "In the meantime no coercive action will be taken against the petitioner and execution of warrant may be kept in abeyance till then only. The investigation will proceed and the petitioner will co-operate during investigation." Said order of interim protection dated 17.4.1997 was directed to be continued and case was osdered to be placed on 30.6.1997 for filing counter-affidavit. On 16.7.1997 when the matter was listed before this Bench, learned Counsel for the petitioner after some arguments, prayed for withdrawing the said petition. The Bench very reluctantly granted permission to withdraw by observing as follows : "After some arguments, Mr. Banerjee, appearing on behalf of the petitioner wants to withdraw this petition. Such sort of withdrawal at the belated stage after getting stay order from this Court may not be proper but as the investigation is in on about the whole scam and the anticipatory bail prayer of the petitioner has been rejected by another Bench of this Court, I am reluctantly according to the prayer. Prayer of withdrawal is hereby allowed. The petitioner is dismissed on withdrawal. Prayer of withdrawal is hereby allowed. The petitioner is dismissed on withdrawal. However, it is observed that the Interveners, as mentioned above, should also be included within the purview of investigation by the Investigating Agency." It is pertinent to mention here that before filing of the aforesaid case being Cr. Misc. No. 1797/97(R) Sri Gupta moved this Court- in Civil Revision No. 567/96(R) which was heard alongwith Civil Revision Nos. 568/96(R) and 569/96(R). In the said Civil Revision Application order dated 1.12.1996 passed by Sub-Judge I, Hazaribagh in Execution Case No. 84/90 was impugned, by reason of which the learned Court below rejected Sri Guptas prayer either to drop or stay the enquiry against him. This Bench by its order dated 21.3.1997, noticing the fact that during the pendency of the civil revision application enquiry has been concluded involving said Sri Gupta and others, disposed of the said application by observing as follows : In that view of the matter, prayer made on behalf of the petitioner has become infruc-tuous. However, as the case has been registered and huge amounts are involved in this case, Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh is directed to supervise and control the investigation of this case and District Judge, Hazaribagh is also directed to cooperate with the investigation agency and make available all the documents as and when required by the Investigation Agency in connection with the investigation of the case. Superintendent of Police will send a monthly report about the progress of the case to the District fudge, Hazaribagh. With the aforesaid observation these applications are disposed of." Being unsuccessful even on this front, said Sri Gupta thereafter moved this Court for anticipatory bail in Cr. Misc. No. 3339/97(R). Again this Bench by its order dated 18.7.1997, after noticing the entire backgrounds of the case, rejected the prayer of anticipatory bail. The, learned Judge prima facie was of the view that said Sri Gupta has been found guilty of defalcation and criminal breach of trust. Said Gupta was directed to surrender in the Court below and move for regular bail. The Court found from the Committees report that some other persons/advocates were also involved in the scam and thus Investigating Agency was directed to take cognizance of the said report as it appeared that the names of those persons were not included while lodging the prosecution. The Court found from the Committees report that some other persons/advocates were also involved in the scam and thus Investigating Agency was directed to take cognizance of the said report as it appeared that the names of those persons were not included while lodging the prosecution. While disposing of the said application, it was observed as follows : "Before parting with the order, I am constrained to observe that the conduct of the two judicial officers namely, Tabarak Hussain and Ram Gopal Pandey needs separate inquiry in order to find out the bona fide of these officers in passing the said orders as the offence alleged is serious in nature which is evident from the report of the committee. The Registry is directed to bring it to the notice of the Hon ble Chief Justice for doing the needful in the administrative side. Copies of the report(s) of the inquiry committee and the order of the Distt. and Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh together with this order be sent to the Hon ble Chief Justice. This application is dismissed with the above observation and direction." In the meantime, it appears, the present writ petitioner, Sri Dey, moved this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in Cr. Misc. No. 6301/97(R) and his prayer was also rejected by this Court on 1.10.1997. There is no denial of the fact that pursuant to order dated 18.7.1997 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 3339/97(R) the enquiry was held by the order of Hon ble the Chief Justice against two judicial officers and they have been suspended for the alleged involvement in passing judicial orders in the Land Acquisition Proceedings. Thus from narration of facts aforesaid, it is clear that not only the factfinding committee but also the learned Court below and this Court were also prima facie satisfied that investigation reveals involvement of Sri Gupta in the scam. 3. Thus from narration of facts aforesaid, it is clear that not only the factfinding committee but also the learned Court below and this Court were also prima facie satisfied that investigation reveals involvement of Sri Gupta in the scam. 3. In the present writ application a grievance has been made by the petitioner that though the Superintendent of Police Hazaribagh (respondent No. 3) in the supervision note (Annexure 10) directed the Investigating Officer to make prayer before the Chief judicial Magistrate to make the present petitioner along with one Govind Mahto as accused in Sadar P.S. Case No. 40/97 and to obtain warrant of arrest and processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr PC but hag indicated that the processes under Sections 82 and 83 Cr PC and warrant of arrest against Sri Gupta could not be executed either for the stay granted by this Court or for the interference of the High Officials. This supervision note of the S.P. is dated 16.8.1997 which clearly indicates that respondent No. 3 clearly directed the I.O. to execute the warrant of arrest and processes against the accused and to request the Regional Inspector General of Police Ranchi (respondent No. 2) to vacate the stay of execution of processes against the accused Gupta. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the facts mentioned in para 23 of the writ application in support of his contention that while protecting the main accused, Sri Gupta, the Investigating Agency, at the behest of respondent No. 2, are harassing the petitioner in connection with this case. He submits that when admittedly said Gupta neither complied with the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated 1.3.1997 nor of this Court dated 18.7.1997 by surrendering before the Court below, there is no earthly reason for the respondent No. 2 to prevent the I.O. or any police officer from executing the warrant of arrest as well as processes issued under Sections 82 and 83, Cr PC against Sri Gupta. 5. On 24.11.1997 learned Government Advocate was given time to take instruction and to file counter-affidavit and as the same was not done, on 5.1.1998, on the prayer being made. Further one week time was allowed to file counter-affidavit. On 22.1.1998, noticing that respondent No. 2 did not file the said affidavit himself and the same was sworn by the Dy. On 24.11.1997 learned Government Advocate was given time to take instruction and to file counter-affidavit and as the same was not done, on 5.1.1998, on the prayer being made. Further one week time was allowed to file counter-affidavit. On 22.1.1998, noticing that respondent No. 2 did not file the said affidavit himself and the same was sworn by the Dy. Superintendent of Administration and further appreciating the facts stated therein, I issued notice of contempt to respondent No. 2. I was of the view that respondent No. 2 has exonerated said Sri Gupta in the case even during pendency of investigation and by directing the I.O. to return the warrant of arrest, processes to the Court, practically interfered with the process of the Court. On being noticed, he filed his show cause and made personal appearance before this Court. 6. Before averting to the statements of the respondent No. 2 in his show cause, it is necessary to deal with the counter-affidavit filed on 19.1.1998 on his behalf. The deponent, Dilip Kumar Kujur has specifically stated in Paragraph 6 that one Dr. Kameshwar Prasad of Department of Neurology, All India Institute of Medical Science, New Delhi, approached the respondent No. 2 by filing an application annexing the documents, with a request to make an enquiry regarding the case. According to said Dr. Prasad, the documents would prove the innocence of the accused Ram Dular Gupta. On receipt of such application on behalf of Ram Dular Gupta, the respondent No. 2 directed the Supervising Authority of the case namely, Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh to submit a report in view of the facts and documents supplied on behalf of Ram Dular Gupta. On the basis of report submitted by the Superintendent of Police and on perusal of the entire investigation made by the police, some directions have been issued by the respondent No. 2 the I.O. by memo dated 24.12.1997. A brief supervision of the enquiry done by the police has also been dealt with. This memo is Annexure-B. Therefore, it is crystal clear that when the investigation of this case was in progress and the learned Court below as well as this Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to Sri Gupta by asking him to surrender and move for regular bail, on being approached by Dr. This memo is Annexure-B. Therefore, it is crystal clear that when the investigation of this case was in progress and the learned Court below as well as this Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to Sri Gupta by asking him to surrender and move for regular bail, on being approached by Dr. Kameshwar Prasad, the respondent No. 2, at his own level, issued direction to the I.O. on 24.12.1997. He did not even care to consider the fact that this Court was satisfied that a prima facie case has been made out against Ram Dular Gupta and as such, he does not deserve anticipatory bail. In utter disregard of the said finding the respondent No. 2 directed the Investigating Officer to return the warrant of arrest alongwith processes under Sections 82 and 83, Cr PC mentioning that no case has been made out against Ram Dular Gupta. By the same direction dated 24.12.1997, while exonerating Ram Dular Gupta from the allegations levelled against him, the respondent No. 2, on the same facts and materials, directed the Investigating Officer to arrest the present petitioner, Sri B.N. Dey. It was also directed that if Sri Dey was absconding, processes under Sections 82 and 83 should be issued. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of this memo of respondent No. 2 indicate that while exonerating Ram Dular Gupta, he further directed the Investigating Officer to enquire into the fact as to whether Ram Dular Gupta in any document has stated to have paid Rs. 25.00 lacs to Sri B.N. Dey as his professional fees. The respondent No. 2 was to the opinion that from the Police Report it is made clear that accused B.N. Dey, Gobind Mahto and Tribhuwan Mahto kept the amount and as such, Tribhuwan Mahto also becomes an accused and Investigating Officer should enquire on this aspect. 7. This direction of the respondent No. 2, in my view, is nothing but interfering with the process of law inasmuch as even when three-man Enquiry Committee was of the view that from the facts and circumstances Ram Dular Gupta cannot escape the liability of having misappropriated a huge amount and when on the basis of the report an FIR was lodged, the respondent No. 2 ought to have given at least some credence to the report of the said Committee. He also did not give any importance to the prima facie finding of this Court in several occasions and completely swayed by the private petition filed by Dr. Prasad. What led Dr. Prasad to approach him by by passing the Courts of law is also under cloud. Nonetheless, when this Court, by its order dated 1.12.1996 passed in Civil Revision No. 567/96(R) and analogous cases, directed specifically the Superintendent of Police to supervise and control the investigation of the case and to send a monthly report about the progress of the case to the District Judge, Hazaribagh, the respondent No. 2, being the Regional Inspector of Police, should not have dared to interfere with the investigation by directing the investigating agency to return the warrant of arrest and processes to the Court below. 8. In his show cause the respondent No. 2 has tendered unqualified apology for the inconvenience caused to this Court but, in my view, it is not a question of inconvenience of the Court but the tendency of the part of the respondent No. 2 in his action or conduct to prevent the course of justice is the relevant fact which falls for consideration. He has failed to satisfy the Court that in exercising his power under the Bihar Police Manual he can even forestall the judicial proceeding in such manner. It is true that the Regional Inspector-General has jurisdiction to investigate or supervise, the case even over all the areas within his jurisdiction, but that does not mean that the will sit over a prima facie finding of a Court of law. The respondent No. 2 should not have forgotten that Ram Dular Gupta times without number moved this Court either for quashing of the FIR or for grant of anticipatory bail but in all fronts he was unsuccessful as this Court was satisfied from the allegation made in the FIR that Sri Gupta, prima facie appears to have, committed the offence. When the matter was investigated and being supervised by the S.P., Hazaribagh, pursuant to the direction of this Court, the respondent No. 2 in all sincerity should not have entertained a private petition of Dr. Prasad. At this juncture it is to be noted that the respondent No. 2, in his show cause, is conspicuously silent about entertaining the petition of Dr. Prasad. Prasad. At this juncture it is to be noted that the respondent No. 2, in his show cause, is conspicuously silent about entertaining the petition of Dr. Prasad. Most of his assertion in his show cause relates to the acts of omission and commission by the writ petitioner Mr. Dey with which this Court is not required to pass any comment at this stage. How- ever, when the fact-finding committee was of the view that Sri Gupta, Advocate has retained Rs. 8,11,906/- of the compensation amount in Execution Case No. 84/90 and has not paid the said amount to the decree-holder Madhur Sao till the date of enquiry, I fail to understand how the respondent No. could have ignored this finding of the Committee and exonerated Sri Gupta. In this connection, it is pertinent to mention one of the findings of the Committee, which reads thus : "There is no evidence to show that awar-dees have ever executed any Power of Attorney, authorising the conducting lawyer Sri Ram Dular Gupta, Advocate to engage the senior lawyer to conduct cases by utilising part of the award money for any other purpose." If this be the one of the findings of the Committee and when the matter is still under investigation, the respondent No. 2 could not have come to a clear-cut conclusion that there was no evidence against Sri Gupta. Whether the present petitioner and other Advocates are involved in the case alongwith Sri Gupta, is a matter of investigation and this Court is not called upon the probe into the matter at this stage. But from memo of the respondent No. 2 and direction given to the Investigating Officer it appears that before completion of the investigation, the respondent No. 2, at his own level, has given a finding in favour of Sri Gupta and presumed against the petitioner Sri Dey and other Advocates. This conclusion of the respondent No. 2, in my view, is premature and calls for serious deprication. It is well settled that even the High Courts seldom interfere with the investigation by quashing the complaint of FIR. This conclusion of the respondent No. 2, in my view, is premature and calls for serious deprication. It is well settled that even the High Courts seldom interfere with the investigation by quashing the complaint of FIR. The respondent No. 2 has tried to defend himself by saying that the materials collected during the course of investigation led him to believe that at this stage the steps taken by the Investigating Officer for issuance of warrant of arrest will not help and the relevant materials which the investigating agency expected to obtain from the other accused may not be forthcoming. According to him, in discharging of his duty he bona fidely considered it necessary to issue instruction to the I.O. which was necessary for a fair investigation and he had no intention to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding and has not done anv act which tends to interfere or obstruct the administration of justice in any manner. This stand, in my opinion, cannot be appreciated. If he has already given out his mind about Sri Gupta, is it for the I.O. or even for the Superintendent of Police to give a report against Sri Gupta, even if materials are sufficient to do so? 9. Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2, has contended that his client admits that he had done wrong by asking the I.O. to return the warrant of arrest issued by the Court but he had no information that the Court had passed any such order of issuance of warrant of arrest. This lame execuse of the respondent No. 2 cannot be believed because if he had no knowledge about the orders of the Court below, he could not have asked the I.O, to return the warrant/processes. The memo and instruction of the respondent No. 2 to the Investigating Officer is dated 24.12.1997 and it is not believable that in his forwarding report the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh did not inform him about the orders passed by the Court from time to time. Surprisingly enough neither in his counter-affidavit nor in his show cause the respondent No. 2 has annexed the report which was said to have been forwarded to him by the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh. Surprisingly enough neither in his counter-affidavit nor in his show cause the respondent No. 2 has annexed the report which was said to have been forwarded to him by the Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh. In this connection, the supervision note of the Superintendent of Police dated 16.8.1997 (Annexure 10) is of much importance. It is to be kept in mind that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the Superintendent of Police was supervising the case and in his supervision note he has pointedly concluded after scrutinising the statements of the witnesses that case against named accused Ram Dular Gupta, non-FIR accused B.N. Dey and Gobind Mahto is found to be true. It is also found that conduct of some judicial officers was suspicious. He was of the view that after further investigation the allegation against other accused came into lignt. Therefore, in his supervision note he directed the Investigating Officer to take steps for issuance of warrant of arrest as well as processes in this regard and also to make a request to higher officer to withdraw the restrain order in executing warrant of arrest and processes. On 27.8.1997, on the prayer made by the Investigating Officer, the Court below being satisfied from the records, directed issuance of warrant of arrest against said Ram Dular Gupta. On 30.8.1997 warrant of arrest was issued. This order alongwith petition of the Investigating Officer are contained in Annexure 11. 10. On petition filed by the present petitioner, Sri Dey, the Court below by its order dated 3.9.1997 directed the learned P.P. to inform the I.O. to check up the records in the Income Tax Department. On 20.9.1997 the wife of the present petitioner also filed a petition before the I.G. Police, Chotanagpur giving in details the facts and circumstances of the case (Annexure 14). 11. The most important fact is that even the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh had written Sri V.B. Pradhan, Superintendent of Police, Hazaribagh through his D.O. letter No. 487 dated 1.9.1997 informing him that despite of communication of dismissal order of the High Court regarding anticipatory bail of Ram Dular Gupta, neither he has surrendered in the Court nor any execution report has yet been submitted by the police. He has observed that : "As you know that the allegation against the accused is serious in nature and deliberately, he is evading his arrest due to which progress of the case is unnecessarily delayed and hampered." The learned Magistrate, thus, requested Sri Pradhan to take steps at his level and to direct the I.O. of the case to execute the process already issued against accused Ram Dular Gupta and to submit the final form within a statutory period. This letter of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is Annexure 20. 12. The aforesaid facts and circumstances undoubtedly depict a sorry state of affairs, where even the judiciary has to request the investigating agency to get its order implemented. The subordinate officers are at a fix inasmuch as even though they are of the view that there is enough materials to proceed against Sri Gupta and has arrest is necessary for further investigation, they cannot arrest him inspire of orders of Courts because their superior, respondent No. 2, has opined otherwise. I am constrained to say that respondent No. 2 by his above instruction to the I.O. has practically nullified the judicial order. If this is not a case of obstructing due procedure of Courts, what else it can be said? 13. With reference to various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Mr. Mahto contends that being a superior officer the respondent No. 2 was withiii his jurisdiction to give direction to the I.O. in returning the warrant of arrest and processes issued against Mr. Gupta. In this connection, he has referred to a decision in the case of Jamuna Choud-hary and others v. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1974 SC 1822 and State of Bihar and anothers v. J.A.C. Saldana and others, reported in AIR 1980 SC 326 . His submission is that the action of the respondent No. 2 cannot be said to be mala fide or motivated to flout the order of the Court and whatever step has been taken by him was to ensure that an innocent person should not be harassed by the investigating agency. The argument of Mr. Mahto does not appears to be correct. There is no controversy that on being moved, the Court below issued warrant of arrest and processes against Sri Gupta by his judicial order. 14. Section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows : "70. The argument of Mr. Mahto does not appears to be correct. There is no controversy that on being moved, the Court below issued warrant of arrest and processes against Sri Gupta by his judicial order. 14. Section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows : "70. Form of warrant of arrest and duration.(1) Every warrant of arrest issued by a Court under- this Code shall be in writing, signed by the Presiding Officer of such Court and shall bear the seal of the Court. (2) Every such warrant shall remain in corce until it is cancelled by the Court which ssued it, or until it is executed." 15. Thus, in my view, the warrant issued bv the learned Magistrate on 22.3.1997 was to remain in force until it is cancelled by the Court which issued the same or until the same is executed. Warrant of arrest is an order directing a certain person to arrest a named person, who is to answer some charges and to produce before the Court. Thus, when the Magistrate issued the warrant on being satisfied with the prayer made by the Investigating Officer, it remains operative until the same is executed or for the reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate cancel the same. In the instant case, on the contrary, the respondent No. 2 being fully aware of the fact that such warrant of arrest was issued by the Magistrate, directed the Investigating Officer to return the same to the Court informing it that no evidence has been found against said Gupta. 16. Mr. Mahto has tried to convince the Court by submitting that as his client had no information about the order of the Magistrate issuing warrant of arrest, therefore, he issued some directions to the Investigating Officer. In my view, this argument of Mr. Mahto has no basis because if the respondent No. 2 has no knowledge about the order dated 22.3.1997, in his direction to the I.O. he could not have asked him to return the processes to the Court. Moreover, from bare perusal of the earlier affidavit filed in his behalf, it is amply clear that on the petition filed by Dr. Kameshwar Prasad aiongwith some documents, the respondent No. 2, with utter disregard to the Courts order, directed the I.O. to return the warrant of arrest and processes. Moreover, from bare perusal of the earlier affidavit filed in his behalf, it is amply clear that on the petition filed by Dr. Kameshwar Prasad aiongwith some documents, the respondent No. 2, with utter disregard to the Courts order, directed the I.O. to return the warrant of arrest and processes. Not only that, being a responsible officer in the Police Department, without considering the entire materials, the respondent No. 2 has given a clean chit to Ram Dular Gupta when the matter is still under investigation. All these circumstances lead to irresistible conclusion that the respondent No. 2 has tried to prevent the course of justice and it is well settled that any interference in the course of justice and any obstruction caused in the path of those seeking justice are an affront to the majesty of law and, therefore, is punishable as contempt of court. 17. It is true that power of the police of investigate into a cognizable offence should not be interfered with by the judiciary in all circumstances. This view finds supports from the decision relied by Mr. Mahto. But, it is equally true that the police administration cannot be allowed to forestall a judicial order passed by a competent Court of law. It must not be forgotten that this country is governed by rule of law and the Court will come heavily if there is any infraction of law and power is exercised arbitrarily. It is beyond comprehension to think of a case where so called power has been exercised, as has been done in the instant case, by the respondent No. 2 in- flagrant violation of settled principle of law. 18. In Saldanas case (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court have depricated interference of the High Court at the stage where investigation was to be taken up by an independent agency. In the instant case, on the other hand, when the Superintendent of Police, who was supervising the investigation pursuant to the order of this Court, was of the opinion that for detailed interrogation arrest of Sri Gupta was necessary, he prayed before the Court for issuance of warrant of arrest as well as processes under Sections 82 and 83, Cr PC. The investigating agency was satisfied that as because anticipatory bail of Sri Gupta was rejected even by the High Court and in spite of specific direction of the Court Sri Gupta did not surrender, warrant of arrest should be issued against him. Thus when Investigating Officer and supervising authority were of the view that for proper investigation Sri Gupta should be detained for interrogation, the respondent No. 2, in my opinion, could not have come to a contradictory conclusion of his own on the basis of a private petition filed by the aforesaid doctor. By doing this, the respondent No. 2 has not only interfered with the order passed by the Court below but has also set at naught the prima facie finding of the enquiry committee as well as of this Court. This is no circumstances can be allowed. 19. In Jamuna Chaudharys case (supra) the Supreme Court has observed that the duty of the Investigating Officers is not merely to bolster up a prosecution case with such evidence as may enable the Court to record a conviction but to bring out the real unvarnished truth. Thus, in this case the respondent No. 2 should have allowed the Investigating Officer to bring out the real unvarnished truth after completion of the investigation and by interrogating the accused persons including Sri Gupta. The respondent No. having not done so, is equally guilty in forestalling even the proper investigation. 20. In the case of Ramautar Shukla v. Commissioner, Kanpur Division and others, reported in 1995 Supp (2) SCC 130, their Lordships, while explaining the meaning of the words "due course of justice" as used in Section 2(c) or Section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act, have held thus : "The Contempt of Courts Act deals with any acts or conduct of the parties to the litigation or witnesses "in any manner". The tendency on the part of the contemner in his action or conduct to prevent the course of justice is the relevant fact. Any interference in the course of justice, any obstruction caused in the path of those seeking justice are an affront to the majesty of law and, therefore, the conduct is punishable as Contempt of Court. Law of contempt is only one of the many ways in which the due process of law is prevented from being perverted, hindered or thwarted to further the cause of justice. Law of contempt is only one of the many ways in which the due process of law is prevented from being perverted, hindered or thwarted to further the cause of justice. Due course of justice means not only any particular proceeding but a board stream of administration of justice. Therefore, the words "due course of justice" used in Section 2(c) or Section 13 of the Act are of wide import and are not limited to any particular judicial proceeding." According to their Lordships, due process of law is blinkered by acts or conduct of the parties to the litigation or witnesses which generate tendency to impede or undermine the free flow of the unsullied stream of justice by blatantly resorting, with impunity, to fabricate Court proceedings to thwart fair adjudication of dispute and its resultant end. If the act complained of substantially interferes with or tends to interfere with the board stream of administration of justice it would be punishable under the Act. 21 From the facts and circumstances as stated above, it is clear that the respondents No. 2 by giving a clean chit to Sri Gupta, while investigation has yet to be concluded, and by directing the Investigating Officer to return the processes to the Court, has interfered with the board stream of administration of justice and as such, is liable to be held guilty under the Contempt of Courts Act. 22. Coming to the question of awarding sentence to the respondent No. 2, it must be born in mind that while awarding sentence on a contemner the Court does so to uphold the majesty of law, and not with any idea of vindicting the prestige of the Court or to uphold the dignity. The fact that the respondent No. 2 is an IPS officer, is of no consequence, so far as the sentence is concerned. Thus, while holding the respondent No. 2 guilty under the Contempt of Courts Act, taking a lenient view, instead of awarding sentence of imprisonment to the contemner, I impose a fine of Rs. 1,000/- to be paid by him from his own pocket. 23. The Investigating Officer as well as the Supervising Authority are hereby directed to proceed with the investigation as directed by this Court from time to time and none of them will be bound by the order passed by the respondent No. 2. 1,000/- to be paid by him from his own pocket. 23. The Investigating Officer as well as the Supervising Authority are hereby directed to proceed with the investigation as directed by this Court from time to time and none of them will be bound by the order passed by the respondent No. 2. The Director-General of Police, Bihar, is hereby directed to see that the course of investigation is not in-terfered with unnecessarily by an officer like the respondent No. 2. 24. Put up this case under the heading for admission before a regular Bench for considering the prayer of the writ petitioner as to whether in the facts and circumstances stated above the investigation should be handed over to the CBI. Ordered accordingly.