' The petitioner, one Syed Ghulamali Shah, has moved this Court for action under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act against the respondent who are the jail officials of Sanghar District. It is the case of the petitioner that he had developed enmity with the district administration of Sanghar and he was accordingly sent up before the S. D. M. And Tribunal, Shahadpur under the Sind Crimes Control Act. The detention order was passed against the petitioner under section 43) (1)) of the said Act. He was, however, ordered to be released on bail by the High Court. The sureties were furnished before Sessions Judge, Sanghar and the release writ was forwarded to respondents Nos. 1 and 2, the Superintendent and Jailer Khipro Sub-jail. This writ was received by them on 1-4-1976. But they wilfully avoided the delivery and formally accepted delivery on 2-4-1976. That even on 2-4 1976 he was not released but was sent to Lundo Police Outpost where he was again detained and challaned in a case under section 107, Cr. P. C. In the Court of Mukhtiarkar and F. C. M. Shandadpur on 5-4-1976. The petitioner again moved the High Court and he was ordered to be released on bail.
The release writ was received by the respondents 1 and 2 on 14-4-1976. He was, however, sent from Khipro to Shandadpur and was released only at Shandadpur on 15-4-1976 at 6-45 p.m.
2. The petitioner has filed his affidavit in support of these allegations. The matter was fixed for evidence but the petitioner declined to examine any witnesses.
3-A. The respondents submitted their parawise comments and they also did not examine any defence evidence.
3. It has been argued by Mr. Muhammed Ali Shaikh on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents deliberately avoided to carry out the orders of the High Court and from 2-4-1976 to 5-4-1976 petitioner was kept in police custody without any case having been registered. That after his release in 107, Cr. P. C. Proceedings, he was not set at liberty by jailor of Khipro jail but was forwarded to Shandadpur and was released on the next day at 6-45 p. m.
4. It has been argued by Mr. Manzoor Hussain on behalf of the respondents that according to the certificate of the postal authorities the release writ was received for the first time on 2-4-1976 and after his release the petitioner was re-arrested in 107, Cr. P. C. Proceedings. That on the second occasion the petitioner was detained in Shandadpur sub-jail and for want of sufficient accommodation he had been sent to Khipro Jail. When the release writ was received at Khipro Jail the prisoner was sent back to Shandadpur as the record of the prisoner was kept there and had not been forwarded to Khipro. He was then released at Shandadpur on the next day. That the delay was, therefore, unavoidable and there was no intention to disobey the orders of the High Court.
5. Mr. Abdul Sattar Shaikh on behalf of the State has argued that the alleged act constituting contempt must be wilful and deliberate.
' In this case the delay has been sufficiently explained. That the High Court will not be sensitive in such matters and in fact the respondents could not be held liable for any contempt of Court. It is true that the jail official& were duty bound to promptly give effect to the orders of the High Court and not wait for any further instructions from the district administration. The conduct of the respondents gives rise to certain misgivings but in view of the explanation offered by the respondents in their parawise comments, the facts appear to have been somewhat exaggerated by the petitioner. Possibly the petitioner was re-arrested after another case was registered against him and one day's delay in the release was due to the fact that the petitioner was originally detained at Shandadpur from where he had been transferred to Khipro Sub-Jail and before release the record of the petitioner had to be verified whether he was required in any other case.
Any action of the Jail officials which brings into contempt the authority of the superior Courts would amount, in law, to an offence under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act. But if failure to carry out the orders of the Court promptly was not wilful, or deliberate and was not for any improper motive but was the result of an attempt to be over cautious then the persons responsible could not be said to have been guilty of any deliberate disregard of the orders of Court and as such no contempt of Court would appear to have been committed. In this case the respondents appear to have acted in a routine manner and although they were slow in carrying out the orders, their negligence could not be regarded as deliberate or intentional. It may, however, be observed that the conduct of the respondents has the appearance of indiscipline and although the case does not require to be dealt with under the law of contempt the laxity and negligence shown by not promptly carrying out the orders issued by the superior Courts must be viewed with disfavour as such conduct tends to bring the administration of justice into scorn and tends to interfere with due course of justice and liberty of citizens. But for these observations the petition is otherwise dismissed.