Judgment 1. The submission made on this appeal, impugning the order of the learned Judge dated 26.2.2004 is on the interpretation of section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. To cut a long controversy short, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that at best the punishment on two aspects, imprisonment and costs, ought to be within the stipulation provided by the law. 2. In so far as the imprisonment aspect is concerned, of the six months, the learned Judge has granted three months only and of the fine, whereas the law provides for two thousand rupees, the learned Judge has imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. Regarding the imprisonment part i.e., a sentence of three months simple imprisonment, the situation is explained thus: It is accepted that the undertaking was not kept or honoured strictly within the period so undertaken. It is explained that an application had been moved on the last day by which the undertaking was to be honoured. Substantial part of the undertaking for the payment of the amount has been discharged. A balance payment yet remained and paid later. It is submitted that this may not be taken that there has been an intentional violation of the undertaking though there was a delay in discharging the terms of the undertaking within time. Thus, it is pleaded that imprisonment may not visit the contemners so awarded by the learned Judge. 3. Regarding cost imposed, recourse is invited to section 12. It is submitted that without any disrespect to the court which awarded the costs of Rs. 50,000/-, the law only provides a maximum which could be awarded a fine. Under the Act it could be a sum of Rs. 2000/-. 4. In so far as last submission on costs is concerned, perhaps learned counsel for the appellant is not incorrect. In so far as the first aspect is concerned as it is accepted that the undertaking could not be honoured within the time stipulated in the undertaking to the court, and was in the process of being discharged, the court accepts the explanation that it was not a case where an undertaking was being violated intentionally and with impunity. Though the total commitment to discharge the undertaking took a little more time than indicated to the court. Costs as a fine cannot be waived but modulated within law. 5. Though the total commitment to discharge the undertaking took a little more time than indicated to the court. Costs as a fine cannot be waived but modulated within law. 5. In the circumstances, the court feels that this matter need not detain the appellate court further. In the ends of justice the following order will suffice. (a) The cost as awarded is revised. Instead of Rs. 50,000/-imposed as fine, the maximum prescribed under the law be awarded, which is Rs. 2000/-. (b) The sentence of imprisonment is set aside (c) The amount of costs will be deposited, as it is a fine, not in the account of the Bihar State Legal Services Authority but, at the treasury of the High Court to be transmitted where such fines are. 6. The appeals succeeded in part.