Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 683 of 1977, decided on 15th June, 1981

---S. 5 (4) read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 228-Contempt of Court-Contemner, a Police official, passing contemptuous remarks against Court, on hearing confirmation order in a bail matter-- Petitioner first admitting to have made such remarks but later on at initiation of contempt proceedings, tendering apology which Court declined to accept and proceeded to convict petitioner-Contention that punishing Court being itself subject of contempt, it was not competent for it to proceed for contempt by himself-Contention, held, devoid of force in view of sub-clause (4) of S. 5 of Contempt Act-Interference declined, in circumstances.-[Contempt of Court].

Fakhre Alam v. The. State and another P L D 1973 S C 525 and Federation of Pakistan v. Yusaf Ali Khan P L D 1977 S C 236 ref.

Sh. Khalid Habib for Petitioner.

Sardar Nazar Muhammad Dogar for the State.

This revision petition is directed against the order dated 17th July, 1977 of Mr. Muhammad Arif Chaudhry, Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha, whereby the later Additional Sessions Judge had convicted and sentenced the petitioner to a fine of Rs. 200, in default whereof he was ordered to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days.

2. The facts leading to this case are that the petitioner appeared as an Investigation Officer in the Court of Mr. Muhammad Arif Chaudhry, Additional Sessions Judge in an application for bail before arrest when the learned Sessions Judge announced the order of confirmation of bail. The petitioner who was present there, immediately remarked.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge took note of these contemptuous remarks, which the petitioner had passed during judicial proceedings. Notice was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why he be not proceeded against. His statement was recorded on the same day and he admitted that he had spoken these words.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner on the same day submitted in writing that he had committed a mistake and he should be forgiven. He also stated that this has happened as, he being alone in the Police Station, there was a rush of work. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not accept the apology and instead he convicted and sentenced the petitioner as aforesaid.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken objection that the learned Additional Sessions Judge could not have proceeded for contempt by himself. He has referred me to section 5(3) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to take notice of subsection (4) of section 5 of the abovesaid Act; which reads as follows:-

"Nothing contained herein shall affect the power of any Court to punish any offence of contempt under the Pakistan Penal Code (Act No. XLV of 1860)."

5. Learned counsel for the State has referred me to section 228, P. P. C. and it is argued on his behalf that the offence committed comes within the provisions of section 228, P. P. C. I feel there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has relied upon Fakhre ALaln v. The State and another (P L D 1973 S C 525). Where the Lordships of Supreme Court were pleased to order in that case, that the apology tendered by the contemner should be accepted. He has also cited a case; Federation of Pakistan v. Yusaf Ali Khan (P L D 1977 S C 236), in the same sequence. I have gone through both the judgments. With utmost respect to their Lordships of the Supreme Court, I am of the view that these authorities do not apply to the case of the petitioner. If the Police officials are allowed to pass such contemptuous remarks, it will become very difficult for the lower Courts to work in harmony. The petitioner was more than insolent and he deserves no sympathy.

In the circumstances stated above, this revision petition is 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.