- (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant after obtaining special leave to appeal from the Privy Council against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in a contempt proceeding.
(2.) It appears that one Ramrajib Singh was detained under the Bihar Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1947, in pursuance of an order issued by the Provincial Government on 19-2-1948. He applied to the High Court at Patna under S. 491, Criminal P. C., and, on 30-7-1948, the High Court directed him to be "released forthwith." The very same day, a copy of the High Court's order was forwarded to the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur , for information and necessary action, and it reached the District Magistrate's office on 31-7-1948. Ramrajib Singh was not however released until 8-8-1948. On 21st September, he filed in the High Court an application for taking action for contempt of Court against the Province of Bihar, the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, and the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bhagalpur, and the High Court, directed a rule to be issued. On the 28-10-1948, the appellant who was during the relevant period the District Magistrate of Bhagalpur, filed a petition in the High Court showing cause against the rule and stated 'inter alia' that he was away from Bhagalpur on tour from the 31-7-1948, when the order of the High Court releasing the detenu was received in his office, that he was not personally guilty, of any laches and had not disobeyed the order of the High Court in any way and that the delay in communicating the order of the High Court to the jail authorities was due to the inexperience of clerks in the office. The appellants petition was accompanied by an affidavit sworn to by his judicial peshkar, who set out his own version explaining the delay in communicating the order of release to the jail authorities. When the case came up before the High Court, the Advocate-General of Bihar tendered an apology on behalf of the District Magistrate, to which the learned Judges have referred in their judgment under appeal in these terms : "Very frankly and candidly, the learned Advocate-General on behalf of the District Magistrate of Bhagalpur has expressed the latter's sincere regret for the delay which had occurred in his office and tendered an unqualified apology to this Court. We accept that apology in this case."
(3.) They ultimately discharged the rule against the appellant with these observations; "Our finding is that, though the District Magistrate of Bhagalpur has been in contempt with regard to Ramrajib Singh, we should discharge the rule against him after accepting his unqualified apology.";