BHATNAGAR, J. - (1.) ON being called upon, Mr. H. N. Calla, Govt. Advocate has appeared for respondent No. 3 and Mr. S. N. Poongalia has appeared for respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 Shri Mohd. Shafi was not a party to the Contempt Petition which was filed by Abdul Rahim on July 5, 1983. Learned counsel appearing for the parties state that respondent No. 2 has unnecessarily been impleaded. They submit that the name of respondent No. 2 may be deleted from the array of respondents. The name of respondent No. 2 is deleted. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed amended cause title.
(2.) THIS appeal under s. 19 (2) of the Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971 is against the order dated August 18, 1983 of the learned Single Judge by which the appellant Abdul Sattar was found guilty of committing Contempt of Court. He was sentenced to one months imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days. The learned Single Judge has also ordered that a warrant of possession should be issued so as to enforce the undertaking given by Abdul Sattar in pursuance of the order dated November 9, 1982 of this Court. Mr. I. R. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted a receipt signed by Abdul Rahim, who has been identified by Shri S. N. Poongalia, Advocate, on September 5, 1983. It has been stated in that receipt that Abdul Rahim has received the possession of the premises in question and also the entire rent. Mr. S. N. Poongalia, Advocate has admitted the contents of the receipt. He states that he has got the copy of the receipt with him. He further submits that as Abdul Rahim has received the possession of the premises in question, there is no need to issue any warrant in pursuance of the order of the learned Single Judge. In support of the appeal Mr. I. R. Choudhary has raised only one point i. e. that the sentence of one month's S. I. awarded to the appellant Abdul Sattar is excessive and unreasonable. He does not question the correctness of the findings of the learned Single Judge by which he has found the appellant guilty of committing the Contempt of Court and prays that a lenient view may be taken on the question of awarding the sentence. As after the passing of the order dated August 18,1983, the accused appellant has already suffered simple imprisonment for twenty days and further for the fact that possession of the premises in dispute has been delivered to Abdul Rahim, we are of opinion that period of one month's simple imprisonment should be reduced to 20 days S. I. which he has already suffered and the fine of Rs. 500/- is reduced to Rs. 100/ -. If the fine is not paid, he will undergo imprisonment for 15 days. Consequently, the Special Appeal is partly allowed and it is not necessary to issue warrant of possession as Abdul Rahim has already received the possession of the premises in dispute. The finding of the learned Single Judge that the appellant has committed Contempt of Court is maintained and the substantive sentence is reduced to the period, the appellant has already undergone viz. 30 days and fine is also reduced to Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to undergo 15 days S. I. .;