Find a Lawyer

Criminal High Court Appeal No.1 of 1986, decided on 4th June, 1987.

---S.6(3)--No contempt proceeding could be initiated during pendency of revision--Judge while hearing criminal revision taking exception to language used in some paras of revision petitions and ordered show -cause notice for contempt--Held, initiation of proceedings for contempt while revision was still pending was not legal--Notice for contempt discharged.

Appellant in person.

Respondents in person.

Abdul Rahim Kazi,.Addl. A.-G. for the State.

Date of hearing: 4th June, 1987.

--This appeal is directed against the order dated 30-9-1985 passed by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Abdul Hayee Kureshi ordering issuance of a show-cause notice for contempt against the present appellant.

The brief facts leading to the filing of the above appeal are that the present appellant filed Criminal Revision Application No.69/1985 against the initiation of proceedings under section 1.82, P.P.C. (Cr. Case No.3/85). When the above Criminal Revision Application had come up before the then learned Chief Justice, he took exception to the language used in paragraphs 4, 9 and 10 of the Revision and ordered the issuance of a show-cause notice for contempt as observed hereinabove. The appellant being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present appeal. In the present appeal the appellant has prayed for the following reliefs:---

"The appellant humbly prays that this Hon'ble larger/ Appellate Bench of this Hon'ble Court:----

(a) be pleased to call for R & P of Criminal Revision No.65/85 from the Hon'ble SINGLE BENCH consisting of learned Mr. Justice Saleem Akhtar;

(b) be pleased to stay the proceedings in Criminal Revision No.65/85, entitled "MJA Gazdar v. State."

URGENTLY;

(c) be pleased to make an order SUSPENDING IMMEDIATELY from legal practice Respondents Hassan Akbar, Advocate Niazy A. Khaliq, ADVOCATE, Khaleelur Rehman, ADVOCATE as well as Zainuddin Sheikh, TOUT/ ADVOCATE Under section 44(1) LP & BC Act, 1973 as PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCTS committed by each one of them in relation to proceedings before this Hon'ble High Court are patently grave, serious and severe and their IMMEDIATE SUSPENSION from practice is EXPEDIENT, NECESSARY and URGENTLY WARRANTED, in the interests of administration of justice and PURITY of judiciary;

(d) be pleased to set aside SINGLE BENCH Original Orders dated 30-9-1985, 7-10-1985, 28-10-1985,.18-11-1985, 11-12-1985 and 12-1-1986, direct QUASHMENT of impugned CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS, discharge impugned Contempt Notice and withdraw the same and also be specifically pleased to direct EXPUNGEME T of the word "CONTEMNO" from impugned orders dated 7-10-1985 with corrections in black ink;

(e) be pleased to. THEREAFTER, remand the matter of Criminal Revision No.65/85 ALONE to learned Mr. Justice Saleem Akhtar;

(f)........

(g) be pleased to direct learned Mr. Justice Abdul Hayee Kureshi (NOW Retired) to put on Court record IN WRITING the events that took place in the PRESENCE of Court in his presence on 24-9-85 shortly before TEA BREAK, on 30-9-85, on 7-10-85 and also on 3-3-85 (Mr. Muhammad Ibr Memon for STATE ( ) touching upon illegalities and offences committed THEN;

(h) be pleased to direct Lnd. Mr. Justice Ahmed Ali U. Kureshi to kindly put on Court-record IN WRITING the "REASONS" for writing "NOT BEFORE ME" on 29-7-85 as his FIRST EVER JUDICIAL ORDER AFTER taking OATH as a HIGH COURT JUDGE and also the events that took place in the Chambers of the learned District and Sessions Judge, (WHOLE OF) Karachi on 8-5-83 touching upon illegalities and offences committed THEN;

(i) be also pleased to direct learned Mr. Justice Saleem Akhtar to put on Court record IN WRITING the events that took place in the PRESENCE of Court in his presence on 18-11-85 and on 11-12-85 and in CHAMBERS on 21-1-1986 after Appellant stepped out touching upon illegalities and offences committed THEN;

(j) be also pleased to direct learned Mr. Justice Sajjad All Shah to put on Court-record IN WRITING the "REASONS" for writing "NOT BEFORE ME" on 28-10-85 and also the events that took place in the PRESENCE of Court in his presence on 28-10-1985, 7-5-1985 and on 12-5-1985 touching upon illegalities and offences committed THEN;

(k) be pleased to pass any other or further or additional Order or Orders deemed fit, just, proper, justified, and necessary in the circumstances leading to this First Contempt Appeal"

In support of the above appeal the appellant in person has invited our attention to section 6 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and has urged that in view of the above section the then learned Chief Justice was not competent to order the issuance of the show-cause notice for contempt. It may be advantageous to reproduce section 6 of the Act which reads as follows: -

"6. Bars to taking cognizance.--(1) No High Court shall take cognizance under this Act of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a Court subordinate to it where the paid contempt is an offence punishable under the Pakistan Penal Code (.Act (XLV of 1860).

(2) No Court shall take cognizance, as of a contempt of Court, of any averment made before the Supreme Judicial Council in respect of which the Supreme Judicial Council has given a finding that the averment fulfilled the requirements of clause (vi) of the proviso to section 3.

(3) No Court shall take cognizance of a contempt of Court arising from an averment made in due course in appellate, revisional or review proceedings, till such proceedings have been finalised and no further appeal, revision or review lies.

(4) No Court shall take cognizance of a contempt of Court arising from an averment made before the Chief Justice of Pakistan, the Supreme Judicial Council, the Federal Government or a Provincial Government:-

(a) until the petition to which the averment relates has been finally disposed of; or

(b) otherwise then under the orders of the Chief Justice of the High Court, the Chief Justice of Pakistan, the Federal Government or the Provincial Government, as the case may be."

A perusal of the above section indicates that in any event during the pendency of the Revision no contempt proceedings could have been initiated even if we were to ignore the other provisions of the section. Mr. Abdul Rahim Kazi, .Addl. A.-G. appearing for the State has conceded the above legal position. In this view of the matter, we are also inclined to hold that the order in appeal is in conflict with the above-quoted section 6 of the Act. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the above order dated 30-9-1985 and also discharge the show-cause notice issued in pursuance thereof.

We have pointed out to the appellant that we cannot touch upon the other reliefs which have been prayed for by him as they are foreign to the subject-matter of the present appeal. The appeal is, therefore, allowed in the above terms but there will be no order as to costs.

K.B.A./M-230/K Appeal accepted /Notice discharged.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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