JUDGMENT Mr. Surya Kant J.: (Oral) - The instant contempt proceedings have arisen out of a reference dated 07.06.2012 sent by Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, inter-alia, alleging that by his act of deliberate inaction and delay in execution of the death warrants of prisoner Balwant Singh son of Malkiat Singh in Sessions Case No. 2-A of 1995 titled as State (CBI) Vs. Gurmeet Singh and others the respondent-contemner who was posted as Superintendent, Central Jail, Patiala, is guilty of willful disobedience and obstruction in the administration of justice besides lowering the authority of Court of Law and thus has committed ‘Contempt of Court’ within meaning of Section 2(c) read with Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 2. Pursuant to the show cause notice, the respondent-contemner has filed his reply-affidavit dated 18.09.2012. At the out set, the respondent-contemner has tendered unconditional and unqualified apology, which was also tendered by him before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandigarh vide affidavit dated 25.04.2012, a copy whereof has been appended with his reply/affidavit as Annexure R-1. 3. The respondent-contemner has further submitted that he had no willful or deliberate intention to defy the directions issued by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. He has submitted that the letters dated 19.03.2012 and 24.03.2012 which are the basis of these contempt proceedings, were sent by him bonafidely to follow the mandate contained in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harbans Singh Vs. State of U.P. 1982(2), Supreme Court Cases 101, laying down that prior to actual execution of any death sentence, the Jail Superintendent should ascertain personally whether the death sentence imposed upon any of the co-accused of the prisoner has been commuted and if it is found to have been commuted, the Jail Superintendent is obligated to apprise the superior authorities of the matter to enable the latter to take prompt steps for bringing the matter to the notice of the Court concerned. 4. Somewhat similar circumstances existed in the instant case also. 5. We have considered the submission made by the respondentcontemner, especially the unconditional and unqualified apology tendered by him before us as well as the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. 6. In our considered view, the ends of justice would be adequately met, if the apology tendered by the respondent-contemner is accepted. 7. We order accordingly. 8. Rule discharged.