Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous Appeal No.66 of 1986, decided on 6th February, 1986.

‑‑‑Ss. 3 & 4‑‑Contempt of Court‑‑Sentence‑‑Mitigation‑‑Contemner, an Assistant Sub‑Inspector of Police, despite grant of interim bail by High Court, arresting petitioner from inside Court premises‑‑Contemner tendering unconditional apology at last stage of contempt proceedings against him and begging for mercy of Court on grounds of being sole bread earner of a large family and having rendered 22 years' service‑ Nothing on record indicated that Contemner previously at any occasion acted in a similar manner‑‑Contemner awarded a sentence of fine of Rs.1,000 or R.I. for 3 months by taking lenient view‑‑Order passed by High Court was ordered not to be considered a disqualification nor made basis for any penalty or departmental action against Contemner.

P L D 1969 S C 77; 1970 S C M R 548; P L D 1982 Lah. 667, 1977 P Cr. L J 852; P L D 1955 Kar. 1; P L D 1977 Lah. 486, 1981 PCr. L J 386; 1985 P Cr. L J 108 and Criminal Miscellaneous No.15, of 1982 ref.

In these Contempt of Court Proceedings the respondents are Mehar Dil, A.S.I. 'C' Section and Muhammad Uris S.H.O. of that Police Station.

2. The facts given rise to these proceedings are that on 14‑11‑1985 this Court granted interim bail‑before‑arrest (Cr. B. A. No 754/85) to one Mukhtiar. The Court was informed by Mr. Ali Nawaz Ghanghro Advocate that respondent A.S.I. and two constables of police station, Bakrani came and arrested Mukhtiar from inside the Court premises. In support, the learned counsel filed affidavit of one Ghous Bux. The following order was passed by my brother Saeeduzzamqn Siddiq‑J.

"Issue notices to Police Officers concerned to show cause why action in Contempt should not be taken against them to come up on 27‑11‑1985. Also issue notice to Mr. Zawar Hussain A.A.‑G. for the same date."

3. After passing this order another application was filed supported by affidavit of Mukhtiar, who was subsequently released stating therein that Mukhtiar was arrested under the orders of Muhammad Uris Mahar S.H.O. Police Station 'C' Section, Sukkur. On 8‑12‑1985 a similar notice was issued to S.H.O. Muhammad Uris Mahar also.

4. Respondent Mehar Dil on 27‑11‑1985 furnished his reply of show cause notice. He stated that on 14‑11‑1985 at about 1300 hours complainant party informed him that absconder Mukhtiar was standing at Petrol Pump Minara Road, Sukkur, near High Court Building Sukkur and he found that person standing. On enquiry that person admitted that he was an absconder, so in good faith he took him to the police station, where Mukhtiar told that he has been granted interim bail- before‑arrest, by the Honourable High Court, Sukkur so he released him at once. He also submitted that he may be excused as he had not acted with any intention to commit contempt. The charge under section 3 read with section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act was frames against the respondent Mehar Dil to which he pleaded not guilty. With the assistance of Mr. Sharafuddin Ada, Advocate the following witnesses were examined. P.W.1 Mukhtiar as Exh.1, P.W.2 Ghous Bux as Exh.3 P.W.3 Ali Nawaz Ghanghro Exh.5, P.W.4 Zawar Hussain, assistant, Advocate‑General as Exh.7 and D.W.1 Hap Wali Muhammad as Exh. 8, D.W.2 Muhammad Uris S.H.O. 'C' Section as Exh.10, and D.W.3 Abdul Hameed Exh.12. The respondent Mehar Dil in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. denied the allegations about the arresting of Mukhtiar from the Court premises but stated that on 14‑11‑1985 at 1‑00 or 1‑30 p.m. he was going on Motor Cycle to Head Quarter when he met complainant Wali Muhammad who informed him that Mukhtiar is accused in his case. He showed him order of Sessions Court and told him that is standing at the petrol pump and then he called that man and him in a Rikshaw but on the way he enquired from him to which he told that he was granted interim bail by High Court but could not furnish surety. He, therefore, brought him and produced in A.A.G's office where he was informed that Mukhtiar was granted interim bail. Thereafter he released him. He has produced his affidavit as Exh.14.

5. On completion of the evidence on next date i.e. 18‑12‑1985 respondent Mehar Dil filed the following statement:‑

I, Mehar Dil A.S.I. hereby surrender before this Honourable Court unconditionally for granting apology in the above matter and pray for mercy of this Honourable Court."

6. On 14‑11‑1985, the learned counsel appearing for applicant Mukhtiar made an application to this Court that A.S.I. Mehar Dil and constables arrested Mukhtiar inside the premises of the Court on which an action was taken and notice was issued. Mr. Ali Nawaz Ghanghro Exh.5 in his evidence has categorically stated that on 14‑11‑1985 Mukhtiar was granted interim bail by this Court and he came out of Court room and informed the Mukhtiar, Ghous Bux and surety that they should wait to furnish bail bonds. He further stated that suddenly he saw respondent A.S.I. Mehar Dil, who slapped Mukhtiar and dragged him out side the road and took him away. He informed the A.S.I. that bail been granted by the High Court, in spite of that he took him away. He informed the Court that Mr. Zawar Hussain A.A.‑G. had filed an application in this Court alongwith affidavit of Ghous Bux Exh.3. Mr. Zawar Hussain Jafri Exh.7 in his evidence stated that Mukhtiar was granted interim bail by this Court and order was announced in his presence. Mr. Ali Nawaz Ghanghro advocate was also present. He has further deposed that on that date the Hon'ble Judge called him in Chamber and told him that in spite of the fact that Mukhtiar was granted bail by this Court, he has been arrested by police. He told him to make enquiries. He came back to his office where Mr. Ali Nawaz Ghanghro informed him about the incident and after a little while A.S.I. Mehar Dil appeared in his Office and asked him whether accused Mukhtiar has been granted bail or not. On enquiry respondent Mehar Dil informed that he arrested the Mukhtiar at the instance of complainant, and now S.H.O directed him to bring the accused to him. He then informed this situation to the Honourable Judge in Chamber and Mukhtiar was released Mukhtiar Exh.1 has also stated that as soon as he came out of Court room and was near the Car of advocate, there appeared Mehar Dil and two constables who forcibly dragged him and took him in a' Rickshaw though he informed them that he was granted bail by this Court. He was taken to police station 'C' Section where he was beaten by S.H.O. and was put in a room thereafter Mehar Dil again brought him in Court and produced before A.A.‑G. and he was left of, he then filed an application. Ghous Bux Exh.3 has also supported Mukhtiar. Haji Wali Muhammad is complainant in a case against Mukhtiar, Ghous Bux and Deedar. He stated that he came to this Court to enquire if Mukhtiar was granted bail‑before‑arrest. He saw Mukhtiar at 1300 hours standing at the petrol pump. He called A.S.I. Mehar Dil, who was going on motor‑cycle and informed him that Mukhtiar is required in his case. Thereafter he arrested Mukhtiar and they went at police station 'C' Section where Mukhtiar informed the respondent Mehar Dil that he has been granted interim bail by High Court. Then A.S.I. took him in a Rickshaw and he accompanied. S.H.O. Muhammad Uris Exh.10 stated on 14‑11‑1985 he came at the police station at about 1‑30 p.m. when he received a telephone call from A.A.‑G., that A.S.I. Mehar Dil arrested one person from Court and I am required to appear in the Court. He came and met Assistant Advocate‑General where he found Mukhtiar, Ghous Bux and A.S.I. Mehar Dil sitting in the A.A.‑G.'s Office. On enquiry he showed his ignorance. He has admitted in cross that Mashirnama of arrest was not shown by A.S.I. Mehar Dil nor such entry was made in the Roznamcha about the arrest of Mukhtiar. He has also stated that during the period of arrest of Mukhtiar respondent Mehar Dil was not on duty. He has also made a report on 23‑11‑1985 against A.S.I. Mehar Dil to S.S.P., Sukkur that Mehar Dil is illiterate, inefficient and knows nothing about the investigation of the cases He has produced a copy of report as Exh.11.

7. I have heard Mr. Samiullah Qureshi, advocate for Contemner. He has argued that there is no independent witness in this case and jurisdiction about the contempt proceedings has always been sparingly used by the superior Courts. He has cited P L D 1969 S C 77 and 1970 S C M R 548 and submitted that benefit if any be given to the contemner.

8. Mr. Sharafuddin Ada advocate who was assisting the Court has argued that this is a serious case of contempt of Court where respondent Mehar Dil has arrested Mukhtiar from the Court premises and sufficient evidence has come on record. He has referred to the cases reported in PLD 1982 Lah. 667, 1977 P Cr. L J 852 and P L D 1955 Kar. 1.

9. I have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Assistant Advocate‑General who is responsible Law Officer and Mr. Ali Nawaz Ghanghro advocate. The presence of Mukhtiar and witness Ghous Bux within the premises of Court of not denied. On the contrary S.H.O. Muhammad Uris has stated that when he came Mukhtiar and Ghous Bux were in the Assistant Advocate‑General Office. The report of this incident was immediately made supported by an affidavit to a Honourable Judge. Mr. Justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui in his Chamber and on that report action was taken promptly and Mukhtiar was released. The evidence of complainant Wali Muhammad and Abdul Hameed is not reliable. Even otherwise they both admit that Mukhtiar was arrested by A.S.I. Mehar Dil outside the Court at the petrol pump. The Court had already passed the order of interim bail before arrest. The contention of respondent Mehar Dil that he was shown order of the learned Sessions Judge cannot be sustained and this version is not supported by any documentary proof. Respondent Mehar Dil at the initial stage had not filed unconditional apology, therefore, evidence was recorded and finally at the last stage, he has realised and submitted unconditional apology and prayed for mercy.

10. There is sufficient evidence against the respondent Mehar Dil for committing contempt of Court, as he arrested Mukhtiar from the premises of High Court when interim bail was granted. He has finally tendered also unconditional apology. Now question arises what sentence in these circumstances to be awarded. The circumstance that respondent is father of eight minor children and he has put in 22 years of service have persuaded me to take lenient view.

11. The object underlying proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act is mainly to foster the confidence of Public in Judiciary as this is the Institution where aggrieved people come and knock the doors for the justice. It is regretted that custodians of life and property of the people violate law and then on getting notice come and pray for mercy. That tendency is growing at the level of subordinate police officers to adopt illegal methods and one of the reasons for such occurrences is that superior police officers always hesitate to take action against their A subordinates even allegations prima facie made out and proved. The point of prestige is always taken in such matters with the result that the grievances of the persons aggrieved are not redressed on one hand, and subordinate are encouraged to continue to Flout Laws, therefore people having no alternate to come for redress to the superior Courts.

12. The respondent Mehar Dil A.S.I. in this case has at later stage tendered unconditional apology and it is argued that he has large family consisting of 8 minor children and he is the only earning member, has put in 22 years of service and risen from police constable to Assistant Sub‑inspector's post. There is nothing on record to indicate that he has at any occasion acted in a similar manner. He has again apologised in open Court that in future he would not behave in this manner. In case he is sentenced to imprisonment, his entire family including innocent children will be more sufferer than him. He will even not be entitled to get pension. For the other reasons I am taking lenient view otherwise deserves no mercy as case has been fully proved against him.

13. The superior Courts have always shown mercy but it is unfortunate that indulgence shown by superior Courts is misunderstood and misused by contemner.

14. For the reasons stated above, I convict respondent Mehar Dil A.S.I. 'C' Section, Sukkur under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act 1976 and award him a sentence of fine of Rs.1000 (one thousand) or in default simple imprisonment for three months. I believe that respondent will desist from acting in similar manner hereafter.

15. I also order that no disqualification or penalty or departmental action shall be taken against the contemner on account of this order. On this I am fortified by the cases of State v. Kazi Muhammad Tufail PLD 1977 Lah. 486, Abdul Malik v. Saeed Ahmed 1984 PCr.LJ 386, Amir Hussain v. Muhammad Rafique and 2 others 1985 PCr.LJ 108 and unreported decisions of the Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 15/82 The State v. Deedar Ahmed A.S.I. of Police, Police Post, Badden and Criminal Reference No. 30 of 1983 State v. A.S.1. Muhammad Dawood.

16. I accept the explanation of Muhammad Uris S.H.O. 'C' Section and vacate show‑cause notice issued to him.

S.G.D. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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