- (1.) THE petitioner is M/s. Bengal Coal Company Ltd. The Company has one colliery within the Asansol Police Station in the district of Bur-dwan. The petitioner alleges as follows :-
(2.) ON April 1, 1969, at about 8 A. M. some two hundred workmen of the colliery unlawfully and wrongfully confined Shri S. K. Mukherjee, Manager of the colliery, and Shri K. K. Kapila, deputy Superintendent. Information was lodged on behalf of the company with Asansol Police Station at about 10 a. M. about this unlawful confinement. Respondent No. 2, Indra Mohan karmakar a Sub-Inspector of Police, obtained a search warrant from the Sub-divisional Magistrate Asansol, on the basis of the said first information report and he returned to the police station with the search warrant at about 11-30 A. M. Respondent No. 2 with some armed constables came to the colliery for execution of the search warrant, but he failed or neglected to execute the search warrant. The persons, who were keeping the said officers under wrongful confinement, said that they would lift the confinement only if their leader one Rabin Chatterjee would permit such a release. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 took the confined officers and some of the demonstrators to the Asansol police station and there the said Rabin Chatterjee came at 5 P. M. and on his intervention the gherao was lifted and the confined officers were allowed to go. It is said that respondent No. 2 deliberately failed or neglected to execute the search warrant issued by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Asansol, and thereby committed contempt of his court. Then, on May 14. 1969, some workmen unlawfully and wrongfully confined Shri S. P. Gautam, Welfare officer of the colliery, at about 9-30 A. M. One B. P. Kavi on behalf of the colliery lodged an information about this wrongful confinement with the Asansol police station at 11-30 A. M. , but the police took no action and directed Shri b. P. Kavi to move the Sub-divisional magistrate. Shri Kavi thereafter moved the Sub-divisional Magistrate, asansol, and at about 12 noon the sub-divisional Magistrate issued a search warrant under section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the rescue of the confined officer Shri S. P. Gautam and this search warrant was made over at the Asansol police station at 1-30 P. M. Respondent No. 1 who was the officer-in-charge of the Asansol police station at the relevant time, however, failed and or neglected to execute the search warrant. He reached the colliery only at 4 P. M. and found the said Shri Gautam still wrongfully confined; but he did not execute the search warrant or rescue Shri Gautam but contacted one rabin Chatterjee and waited till the said Rabin Chatterjee came and persuaded the waited till the said rabin Chatterjee came and persuaded the demonstrators to lift the gherao. The confined officer Shri Gautam was allowed to go only thereafter. Similarly, on June 16, 1969, at about 10 A. M. some workmen again unlawfully and wrongfully confined Shri N. N. Gautam, Manager, and the said Shri s. P. Gautam, Welfare Officer of the colliery. At about 12 noon Shri S. Sidhanta, Security Officer of the colliery, lodged an information at the Asansol Police Station about this wrongful confinement. Respondent No. 1, who was officer-in-charge of police station, took no action and directed Shri Sidhanta to move the Sub-divisional magistrate. Shri Sidhanta there-upon made an application before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, asansol, and obtained a search warrant under section 100 of the Code for the rescue of the confined officers at about 1-15 P. M. The search warrant was made over to the respondent No. 1 at the Asansol police station at about 1-30 P. M. but he failed or neglected to execute the search warrant. He arrived at the colliery only at about 4 P. M. and even then, he took no steps to execute the search warrant. He waited there till about 5-30 P. M. when the said Rabin chatterjee came to the colliery and on his intervention the demonstrators lifted the gherao and the confined officers were allowed to go. It is said that on both these occassions respondent no. 1 failed and/or neglected to execute the search warrant and thereby interfered with the course of justice and thus committed contempt of the court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, asansol.
(3.) THE learned Advocate General has appeared before us on behalf of both the alleged contemners and tenders unqualified apology on behalf of both. The respondents filed affidavit in answer to the Rule; but then, the learned Advocate General obtained our permission to withdraw those affidavits and the respondents have now filed fresh affidavits. The respondents have in these affidavits too tendered unqualified apology.;