Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 662 of 1984, decided on 11th February, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 435‑‑Contempt of Court‑‑Accused convicted and sentenced for committing contempt of Court‑‑Appeal dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge BASEGHA HAQ RASI ‑‑Appeal once entertained, held, should have been decided on merits and could not be dismissed BASEGHA HAQ RASI as there is no such provision in C r. P. C.

Ch. M.A. Saleem for Petitioner.

Muhammad Mansha for the State.

Date of hearing: 11^thFebruary, 1985.

The facts giving rise to this revision are that in February, 1984 Muhammad Zaman petitioner was. Assistant Record Keeper. The Senior Civil Judge, Gujrat required him to send record of case titled Amina Bibi v. Sardar and others. He did not comply with the order. On 28‑2‑1984 the Senior Civil Judge gave him show‑cause notice to appear and explain as to why contempt proceedings be not taken against him. He appeared on the same day and said in rude and rough tone that record was not available. The Senior Civil Judge, asked him to make efforts to locate and send it to him but his reply was:‑

"File is not lying in my house that I should bring it immediately."

Feeling that the petitioner had disgraced the Court in the estimation of the public and lawyers present in the Court, the Senior Civil Judge convicted him under Contempt of Court (as stated by Senior Civil Judge in his judgment) and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 200 only or one month R.I. on 29‑2‑1984. The petitioner filed appeal which was entrusted to Additional Sessions Judge, Gujrat who instead of deciding the appeal on merits recorded statement of the petitioner, that:‑

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is totally illegal. The learned counsel for the State has not controverted the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after having entertained the appeal should have decided the same on merits. He could not have dismissed the appeal.

There is no provision in the Cr.P.C. authorising the Court to dismiss criminal appeal;

That being the position, there is no option but to set aside the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge.

4. Since the learned Senior Civil Judge had not followed the proper procedure and had not conducted proper trial before recording conviction of the petitioner, I do not desire to send back the appeal for rehearing. The revision is disposed of accordingly.

H. A. K.

Revision 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.