Find a Lawyer

Criminal Review Petition No. 1 of 1972, decided on 5th March 1973.

(On review from the judgment and order of the Supreme Court, dated the 29th November 1971, in Criminal Appeal No. 58 of 1967 against the judgment and order of the then High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, in Criminal Original No. 137 of, 1967, dated the 15th September 1967).

O‑ XXVI, r. 5‑Review‑Precedent cited to invoke Court's power of review distinguishable and also not cited at hearing of appeal‑No ground, held, available for review

S. M. Yousuf v. S. K. Rahim and others P L D 1969 S C 77 distinguished.

Petitioner in person.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing : 5th March 1973.

This petition seeks to review the decision of this Court refusing to interfere with the order of the then High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore Seat, punishing the petitioner for contempt of that Court. This Court, however, reduced the sentence of six months' simple imprisonment to the period already undergone, arid the fine of Ids. 1,500 in default 3 months' further simple imprisonment to the fine of Rs.1,500 only and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

Only two grounds have been urged in support of the review.

Firstly, that the petitioner's case is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of S. M. Yousuf v. S. K. Rahlm and others (PLD 1969SC77) and he is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt as he acted in good faith and without any self‑interest.

Secondly, that the punishment meted out to the petitioner is harsh.

None of the two grounds is available for review. As regards the first contention each case depends on its own particular fact and circumstances. The facts of the case under report have n application to the facts of the instant case. While in the instant, case there was a deliberate and serious act of contempt on the part of the petitioner, in the case under report it was doubtful whether the act alleged amounted to contempt. In the case under report it has been observed as follows:

"The action of the Customs Authorities gives us the impres sion that the delivery of the seized goods to the petitioner by the Customs Department officials was made, more in their anxiety to comply with the orders of the High Court rather than to defy it. They have reseized the goods in their belief that the order of the High Court had not placed any restriction on them to do so. The High Court in disposing of the contempt application has said that no restriction was placed on the Customs Authorities against reseizing of the goods if the requirements of law were fulfilled. When the High Court itself thinks that in reseizing the goods the Customs Authorities had purported to act in the exercise of their powers and no contempt was committed by them, it becomes impossible to agree with Mr. Brohi, the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court should feel differently, in a super sensitive regard for the dignity of the superior Courts to see that their orders command absolute submission .

. . . . In proceedings for contempt where the conduct of a person who has apparently defied the orders of the Court leaves room for doubt with regard to his intention and a belief is possible that he has acted either mistakenly or on wrong but honest notions of his rights, the benefit of doubt should ungrudgingly be given to him."

Besides, the case had already been reported and it was open to the petitioner to place it before this Court when it heard theft appeal.

So far as the second contention is concerned this Court, having regard to the fact that the petitioner was a junior pleader of only five years standing and was inexperienced in his profession, and his youthful exuberance was due to certain abnormal situation created by the girl's protests against the husband's attempt to take her away, considerably reduced the sentences.

There is no substance in the petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.