JUDGEMENT 1. This letters patent appeal is at the instance of Devendra Narayan Singh, who has been held guilty under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short Act of 1971) for disrespect to the direction issued by the Single Judge and for causing interruption in the judicial proceedings (Criminal Misc. No. 2064 of 2008) and suffered a fine in the sum of Rs.100/- or to suffer simple imprisonment for two days in default. 2. It transpires that a bail application Criminal Misc. No. 2064 of 2008 (Mamta Kumari and Another vs. State of Bihar) came up for consideration before the Single Judge. In that bail application, the Single Judge directed to place before him the injury report of the injured in Fatuha P.S. Case No. 179 of 2003. The appellant, who was posted as Circle Inspector of Fatuha Circle forwarded carbon copy of the case diary to the Public Prosecutor. The Single Judge, prima facie, held the view that by forwarding carbon copy of the police diary, which was not required by the Court, a disrespect has been shown and that the Circle Inspector caused interruption in the disposal of the bail application. Consequently, the Single Judge vide order dated 23rd April, 2008 issued show cause notice to the appellant indicating therein as to why he be not directed to suffer an imprisonment of seven days for causing interruption in the disposal of the judicial proceedings. We deem it proper to reproduce the order dated 23rd April, 2008 as it is: "This Court wanted only the injury report of the injured of Fatuha P.S. Case No. 179 of 2003. The Circle Inspector of Fatuha Circle has for forwarded the carbon copy of the case diary which was never required by this Court. Let him be called for to show cause as to why he be not directed to suffer an imprisonment of seven days for causing interruption in the disposal of the present judicial proceedings by ignoring the orders of this court and acting contrary to its direction. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the APP for information and needful. At the same time, let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Superintendent of Police, Patna (Rural) for information and necessary action. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the APP for information and needful. At the same time, let a copy of this order be transmitted to the Superintendent of Police, Patna (Rural) for information and necessary action. The ACJM, Patna City shall ensure that copy in any form of the injury report is transmitted to this court without further delay." 3. In response, the contemnor (appellant herein) filed a show cause and denied any disrespect to the Court or that he caused any interruption in the disposal of the judicial proceedings. 4. The Single Judge, while disposing of the bail application vide his order dated 14th August, 2008 held that there was disrespect to the direction of the Court. The Single Judge held that the Circle Inspector intentionally disobeyed the order of this Court and consequently directed him to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- or to suffer simple imprisonment for two days. The part of the order that is under challenge reads thus : "The above statement appears against the practice as per which it is the concerned Superintendent of Police, Dy. S.P. or other Officers, like, the present contemner who have the responsibility of submitting the police diary or any part thereof, like, the injury report on the direction of this Court issued to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of the concerned stations. The Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate transmits the order of this Court to the above noted Police officer for compliance. Thus, it was the duty of the contemner to procure the injury report but he appears ignoring the same in transmitting the same. The Court had only desired submission of the injury report. It had never desired submission of the case diary as appears from the order passed on 25.3.2008. Non-submission of the injury report on account of not taking proper and appropriate steps for procuring the same by the contemner appears intentional and that caused interruption in the present judicial proceeding. While hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the show cause, I find that he was attempting to shift the responsibility from the contemner to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City. While hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the show cause, I find that he was attempting to shift the responsibility from the contemner to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City. He was making submission against the orders of this Court passed on 23.4.2008 and that also indicates the degree of contempt and disrespect to the direction of this Court and intentional act of causing interruption in the present judicial proceeding and in its disposal. It is established beyond reasonable doubt for the above reasons that the Circle Inspector of Police Circle has intentionally disobeyed the orders of this Court. As such, he is directed to pay a fine of rupees one hundred only or to suffer S.I. for two days in default. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, shall issue warrant of arrest for the arrest of Circle Inspector of Police Circle at Fatuha in case of default in paying the fine in one month time so that he is arrested and committed to the custody." 5. As indicated above, it is this order which is impugned in the present appeal. 6. Section 2(b) and 2(c) of the Act of 1971 defines civil contempt and criminal contempt respectively which read thus : 2.(b) "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court; 2.(c) "criminal contempt" means the publication (whether by words, spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which (i) scandalizes or tends to scandalize, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court; or (ii) prejudices, or interferes or tends to interfere with, the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iii) interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the administration of justice in any other manner." 7. A perusal of the order dated 23rd April, 2008 drawn by the Single Judge would indicate that, prima facie, the contemnor was found to have caused interruption in the judicial proceedings and, therefore, notice was issued to him. A perusal of the order dated 23rd April, 2008 drawn by the Single Judge would indicate that, prima facie, the contemnor was found to have caused interruption in the judicial proceedings and, therefore, notice was issued to him. Although, accusation like this would amount to criminal contempt but the Single Judge did not treat the conduct of the contemnor amounting to criminal contempt, else he would have referred the matter to the Division Bench as every case of criminal contempt is required to be heard and determined by a Division Bench of not less than two Judges, as provided under Section 18 of the 1971 Act. We may, therefore, safely assume that the conduct of the contemnor was, prima facie, considered by the Single Judge to be an act of disobedience of the order of the Court. 8. Patna High Court has made rules under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 called "Contempt of Courts (Patna High Court) Rules. Rule 3 provides thus : "3.(i) Every petition for initiating a proceeding for civil contempt within the meaning of the Act shall be registered as Miscellaneous Judicial Case whereas petitions for initiating proceedings for criminal contempt shall be registered as Original Criminal Miscellaneous Cases. (ii) In every such petition the State of Bihar shall be made a respondent. (iii) Every such petition shall contain- (a) Name, description and place of residence of the petitioners and of person or persons, charged ; (b) Nature of the contempt alleged and such material facts, including the date or dates of the commission of the alleged contempt, as may be necessary for proper determination of the case. (c) If a petition has previously been made by him on the same facts, the petitioner shall give the details of the petition previously made and shall also indicate the result thereof. (iv) The petition shall be supported by an affidavit. (v) where the petitioner relies upon a document or documents in his possession or power, he shall file such document or documents or true copies thereof with the petition. (vi) No court fee shall be payable on the petition and on any document filed in the proceeding." 9. Since the contempt proceedings are quasi criminal in nature, rules have been framed to ensure that no contemnor is condemned un-heard and that he has full opportunity of defending himself. 10. (vi) No court fee shall be payable on the petition and on any document filed in the proceeding." 9. Since the contempt proceedings are quasi criminal in nature, rules have been framed to ensure that no contemnor is condemned un-heard and that he has full opportunity of defending himself. 10. Although, in the present case the Court initiated the proceedings for contempt suo motu, it was required to be registered separately. That was not done and the Single Judge proceeded to hear the contempt matter himself. 11. Having taken into consideration all aspects of the matter, we are unable to hold that there was any contumacious conduct on the part of the contemnor in forwarding carbon copy of the case diary although the Court desired injury report to be shown. There could have been some misunderstanding by the Public Prosecutor who appeared in the bail application or lack of understanding by the Circle Inspector who sent the carbon copy of the case diary in place of injury report but from that it cannot be inferred that the Circle Inspector wilfully and/or intentionally disobeyed the order of the Court. There may be some lapse on the part of the Circle Inspector in forwarding carbon copy of the case diary which was not required by the court but such lapse does not tantamount to disobedience of the order of the Court. Every negligence or lapse does not lead to necessary inference of disrespect or disobedience of the order of the Court or causing interruption in the judicial proceedings. Such conduct sans wilful intention cannot be construed as a civil contempt. We are, therefore, unable to uphold the order of the Single Judge. The part of the order dated 14th August, 2008 to the extent the appellant has been held guilty of civil contempt and awarded sentence of fine is set aside and we order accordingly. 12. The Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of.