M.M.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE grievance made is that even though the revision petition of Charanjit Singh and Sukhwant Singh had been allowed on 15.6.1983 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, yet the respondent, who had ordered that they be kept in custody under Section 116(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, did not release them from custody. The further allegation made is that the respondent actually passed the order on June 22, 1983, regarding the alleged release of Charanjit Singh and Sukhwant Singh, but he ante -dated that order to June 21, 1983. The respondent is present in Court. He has denied these fact on affidavit.
(2.) MR . Brar, Assistant Advocate -General, Punjab, has shown us the record of the case, and has submitted that the Zimini orders dated 21.6.1983 were actually drawn up by the Reader, which were signed by the respondent in routine. On that date two orders were passed. The first order was that the case was being adjourned for evidence to July 7, 1983. Later on another order was passed to the effect that by that time the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, quashing the proceedings, had been received and for that reason Charanjit Singh and Sukhwant Singh be released from custody. It is being claimed on behalf on the respondent that since the second order was passed late in the day, it could not be complied with by the Jail Authorities and for that reason Charanjit SIngh and Sukhwant Singh were released on June 22, 1983. In Union of India v. T.B. Verma, AIR 1957 S.C. 882, it has been laid down that when there is as dispute s to what happened before a Court or Tribunal the statement of the Presiding Officer in regard to it is generally taken to be correct. In Hemi Rustomji Pardivala v. The Sub Inspector Baig and others, AIR 1944 Lahore 196, it has been laid down that proceedings for Contempt of Court are of a summary nature and that being so, such proceedings are not suitable for decision of a hotly contested question of fact. In the face of the aforementioned circumstances, we do not think that it is a fit case in which we should proceed further under the Contempt of Courts Act. We accordingly discharge the rule against the respondent.
(3.) EVIDENTLY , the learned Additional Sessions Judge had quashed on June 15, 1983 the order passed by the respondent regarding their detention and in spite of that fact, they were not released from custody till the after -noon of June 22, 1983. In the circumstances, we order the State Government to pay Rs. 250/ - each to Charanjit Singh and Sukhwant Singh as compensation. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in respect of some cases under Sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the respondent has not attested the surety bonds filed by the Charanjit Singh and Sukhwant Singh. We order that these two cases should be transferred to the file of another Executive Magistrate at Patiala, to be nominated by the Deputy Commissioner of the District. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Petition disposed of.;