Ramendra Nath Dutt, J. - (1.) The Petitioner is a sales officer under the Electric Construction and Equipment Company Ltd. It has its factory at Nilganj within Barrackpore Sub -division in the district of 24 -Parganas. It is alleged that on May 2, 1969, at about 5 p.m. some workers of the factory wrongfully and illegally confined the factory manager Shri R.P. Malaviya and 13 other senior management staff of the company and they were not allowed to move out. The Petitioner moved the Sub -divisional Magistrate, Barrackpore, under Sec. 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and at 9 -20 p.m. on May 2, 1969, the Sub -divisional Magistrate, Barrackpore, issued a search warrant directing the Police of the Titagarh Police Station to forthwith rescue the wrongfully confined persons. The wan ant was made over to Respondent No. 1, the Officer -in -charge of Titagarh Police Station, at 10 -15 p.m. He endorsed the search warrant in favour of Respondent No. 2, Sub -Inspector of Police, for execution at 11 -30 p.m. Respondent No. 2 with Respondent No. 3, one other Sub -Inspector of Police, went to the factory but did not execute the search warrant and did not rescue the confined persons but made some attempts at conciliation and thereafter left the factory. Subsequently, at 3 a.m. on May 3, 1969, Respondents 2 and 3 again went to the factory but again did not execute the search warrant and did not rescue the confined persons but made some further attempts at conciliation. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, thereafter, again left the factory. Then at 7 -30 a.m. on May 3, 1969, Respondent No. 1, who, as we have said, was the Officer -in -charge of the Police Station, accompanied by Respondents Nos. 2 and 3, went to the factory again, but even then the search warrant was not executed and the confined persons were not rescued. On the other hand, they all tried at some settlement or conciliation between the workers and the management. Subsequently, at 11 -30 a.m. on May 3, 1969, one Assistant Labour Commissioner came there and after protracted talks with the workers and the management he drafted the terms of a certain settlement and the management was forced to agree to the terms and to sign the draft settlement. The wrongful confinement, which is now commonly known as gherao, was then lifted and thereafter the Respondents purported to execute the search warrant and to rescue the confined persons.
(2.) On these allegations this Rule was issued directing the Respondents to show cause why they should not be dealt with for contempt of the Court of the Sub -divisional Magistrate, Barrackpore, for having wilfully and deliberately disobeyed the order of the Sub -divisional Magistrate thereby interfering with the due course of justice. The Respondents have shown cause.
(3.) The fact are more or less not disputed. The workers of the factory did, in fact, confine the factory manager Shri R.P. Malaviya and some senior management staff inside the factory. This was after the factory hours on May 2, 1969. The Sub -divisional Magistrate was moved with an application for a search warrant under Sec. 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that Sub -divisional Magistrate issued a search warrant at 9 -20 p.m. on May 2, 1969. The search warrant was duly made over to Respondent No. 1 at 10 -15 p.m. the same night. He took prompt action and endorsed the search warrant in favour of Respondent No. 2 for execution. Respondent No. 2, accompanied by Respondent No. 3, left the thana at 11 -30 p.m. The search warrant was not executed till about 12 -15 p.m. on May 3, 1969. These facts are not denied.;