Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 472 of 1984, decided on 28th June, 1984.

‑‑‑S.3‑‑Contempt of Court‑‑Object underlying‑‑Proceedings under Act‑ Mainly to foster confidence of public in institution of judiciary and punishment of offender an ancilliary purpose‑‑Court if of view that majesty of law is restored by apology that is tendered by exhibition of genuine regret on part of contemner, Court, held, would look upon such apology with favour.

‑‑‑S.3‑‑Contemner tendering apology at an early stage and appearing in Court on two/three occasions; expressing profound grief in a choking voice and praying for mercy on ground that he had put in sixteen years service and had a family including children to support‑‑Contemner previously not acting in contemptuous manner and ensuring not to behave in like manner in future‑‑Contemner awarded sentence of fine or in default to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days to meet ends of justice with order not to be proceeded departmentally.‑ [Sentence].

P L D 1977 Lah. 486; 1982 P Cr. L J 386 and Cr. Org. Misc. No. 15 of 1982 rel.

‑‑‑S. 3‑‑Contempt of Court‑‑Growing tendency at level of subordinate police officers to flout orders of Courts and then tender unqualified apology‑‑Discussed.

The respondent, Atta Muhammad, Assistant Sub‑Inspector, Gulberg Police Station, Karachi, was given a notice to show cause why he should not be convicted under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976. He appeared and tendered an unconditional apology and prayed for mercy.

The brief facts given rise with these proceedings are that one Ameer Hassan son of Wajid Ali filed a petition under section 491, Cr.P.C. in which he prayed that Mst. Tasleema Begum is wrongfully confined within the jurisdiction of Police Station Gulberg, Karachi. The S.H.O. Gulberg Police Station was directed by an order dated 12‑6‑1984 to produce detenu Mst. Tasleema Begum in this Court on 20‑6‑1984. On that day respondent Atta Muhammad, Assistant Sub‑Inspector, appeared and stated that he had searched the detenu but did not find her as she was not available at the place as mentioned in the order of this Court. On enquiry it was found that he did not prepare Mashirnama of the search of premises nor he had any written authority from the S.H.O. to produce and secure the detenu. Under these circumstances, he was asked to surrender all the papers such as letter of this Court and other documents but he did not comply with the orders and went away. Subsequently, it was found that he had intentionally disobeyed and not given the relevant papers as directed by this Court. A notice was issued to him. He appeared on 26‑6‑1984 and filed his reply. Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, learned Additional Advocate‑General requested for time and matter was adjourned to 27‑6‑1984. Respondent Atta Muhammad, Assistant Sub‑Inspector, again filed an unconditional apology. Charge was framed. He pleaded guilty and prayed for mercy.

I have heard respondent Atta Muhammad and Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, Additional Advocate‑General.

Respondent has submitted that he has never intentionally attempted or, tried to disobey the orders of this Court.

In the first instance it has been stated that this apology has been given before the charge was framed. It is termed unconditional and expresses regret.

The object underlying proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act is mainly to foster the confidence of public in the institution of judiciary. The punishment of the offender is an ancilliary, purpose underlying punishment. If a Court is of the view that the majesty of law is restored by the apology that is tendered by exhibition of genuine regret on the part of the contemner the Courts have looked upon such apology with favour. In the instant case the apology has been given at an early stage and contemner has appeared in Court on two occasions. Even today he expressed his profound grief in a choking voice. He has prayed for mercy on the ground that he has put in 16 years service and has arisen from the rank of A.S. I. and has family including the children to support. There is nothing before me to indicate that he has on previous occasion acted in a similar manner. He has assured that in future he would not behave in this manner.

The respondent has a long service and has no previous conviction at his credit for the identical case. He has tendered apology at an early stage therefore these circumstances have persuaded me to take lenient view. I am of the opinion that sentence of fine of Rs. 200 or in default to suffer S.I. for 15 days would meet the ends of justice. It is stated that the fine be paid today. I believe that the respondent would desist from acting in a similar manner hereafter. I also order that no disqualification or penalty or departmental action shall be taken against the contemner on account of this order passed today. I refer to cases reported in P L D 1977 Lah. 586, 1982 P Cr. L J 386 and unreported case decided in Cr. Org. Iliac. No. 15 of 1982.

Before parting with this judgment I am constrained to say that tendency is growing at the level of subordinate police officers to flout the orders of the Court which they are legally bound to implement and obey. When a contempt notice is given they immediately come and tender unqualified apology and pray for mercy to save their skin. On the other hand the High Courts on the assumption and belief that in contempt matters it is better to forgive than to punish a mercy seeker and that by this grace the dignity of this Court is more enhanced either Courts discharge notices or award nominal punishment as it has been done today. It is really unfortunate that indulgence thus shown by the Superior Court is now being misunderstood and misused by contemner particularly by Station House Officers. There are so many instances that police officers /officials after having been discharged or leniently dealt with have repeated the contempt of Court.

M. Y. H. Petition partly accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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