Find a Lawyer

Criminal Original No.25-W of 1986 in Writ Petition No.497 of 1986, decided on 28th April, 1987.

--S.3--Notice of contempt--Respondent a Medical Officer in a Jail submitting a false report in High Court about wounds on person of a detenu--Respondent was issued show-cause notice as to why contempt proceedings and also proceedings for preparing false document be not initiated against him--Unconditional and unqualified apology was tendered by respondent with submission that he was a young doctor having limited experience, sitting at thresh-hold of his professional career; a setback at this stage would ruin his entire future- Respondent was extremely sorry, regretful, remorseful and full of repentance and begged for extreme indulgence of High Court and threw himself at mercy of Court for pardon and forgiveness- Submissions made by counsel for respondent as well as demonstration of respondent throughout proceedings leaving no doubt that he would have learnt lesson of life--High Court being satisfied that apology deserved acceptance, accepted same and notice of contempt issued was recalled.

P L D 1970 S C 350 and P L D 1964 S C 562 rel.

Tassadaq Hussain JiIlani, A.A.-G. for the State.

Sardar Faiz Muhammad Khan Khosa for Respondent

A writ petition (W.P.No.497/86) in the nature of Habeas Corpus was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution seeking release of a detenu ordered to be detained by the District Magistrate, Leiah. It was urged in the petition that the detenu had been subjected to physical and mental torture. On 26-4-1986, the learned Judge dealing with the petition directed that "he (Superintendent, New Central Jail, Multan) shall also take steps to have the detenu medically examined". The Medical Officer reported on 27-4-1986 that "he was C/o being tortured by, police. I was not able to fined any injury or deep cut anywhere on his body." When this report was put up before the Court on 29-4-1986 the writ petitioner who is an Advocate so also another Advocate appearing on his behalf submitted that "they have met the detenu in Jail yesterday and have themselves seen marks of violence on his body. They, therefore, vehemently controvert the medical report submitted by the Superintendent Jail. They want to submit an affidavit just now to controvert the medical report. Let them do so." When the case came up for hearing later in the day, the Superintendent Jail was directed to "take steps to get the detenu examined by the Medical Superintendent, Civil Hospital, Multan by tomorrow and to submit the report of the medical examination to this Court before the next date of hearing." The Medical Superintendent constituted a Board and the Medical Board examined the detenu and submitted a report enumerating nine fading contusions mostly on the back behind the chest and in front of right upper arm. These were by blunt weapon. The probable duration given by the Board was about 7 to 9 days." When the case was taken up on 3-5-1986, it was observed that "the Medico-legal report of injuries submitted by M.S. Civil Hospital, Multan has been received and examined. The report shows that Muhammad Siddiq, the alleged detenu had received as many as nine wounds. Despite this the Medical Officer, New Central Jail, Multan had made a report to the effect that no wound was found on the person of the alleged detenu. Prima facie it appears that -the Medical Officer has submitted false report in this court. Let a notice be -issued to him to appear before this Court today at 11.30 a.m. and show cause as to why contempt proceedings and also proceedings for preparing false document be not initiated against him. To come up at 11-30 a.m. today." When the case came later in the day it was pointed out that the Medical Officer was on leave. It was directed that "a file on Criminal Original side be opened against him and fresh notice be issued to him for 1-6-1986." The Medical Officer filed an application for acceleration of the date of hearing, on 11-5-1986 saying that "on the date of hearing fixed the respondent intends to surrender himself before this august Court with an unconditional and unqualified apology and wants to throw himself at the mercy of this Hon'ble Court begging for pardon." The reason given for early hearing, was that the respondent was a young qualified doctor intended to go abroad for his M.R.C.P. On 13-5-1986, an unconditional and unqualified apology was tendered by the respondent saying that:

"(1) The answering respondent is a young and qualified medical practitioner having limited experience and being a novice due to his recent initiation into service.

(2) The answering respondent has profound regard and respect for this Hon'ble Court and it is absolutely unthinkable for him to mean any disrespect or disobedience .towards this Hon'ble Court.

(3) Without attempting to raise any kind of defence whatsoever the answering respondent hereby tenders an unqualified and unconditional apology and throws himself at the mercy of this Hon'ble Court begging for pardon and forgiveness.

(4) The present apology is a categorical acknowledgment of atonement, an unambiguous expression of regret and a patent manifestation of repentance on behalf of the answering respondent.

(5) The answering respondent is a young and qualified doctor sitting at the threshold of his professional career. Any setback at this stage is going to ruin his entire future. Moreover, the respondent intends to pursue higher education abroad in the near future in a bid to improve his academic qualifications and bolster his professional standing. Any adverse order passed by this Hon'ble Court at this juncture is likely to shatter the respondent's prospects in this respect.

(6) The answering respondent is extremely sorry, regretful, remorseful and full of repentance and begs for extreme indulgence of this Hon'ble Court."

It was prayed "that the answering respondent may graciously be pardoned and the show-cause notice issued against him may kindly be discharged." The detenu filed Crl.Org. No.25-W/86 on 18-5-1986 saying that the statement of the respondent that he intended to go abroad to take MRCP Examinations was wrong nor any application for ex-Pakistan leave nor for issuance of NCC nor for the grant of Visa, was placed on the record. This was directed to be put up alongwith the Crl.Org. vide order dated 19-5-1986. Both these matters are intended to be disposed of by this order.

2. The learned Assistant Advocate General prosecuting the petition has submitted that there is no doubt whatsoever that the report submitted by the respondent was wrong and not correct. It stands established from the report of the Medical Board which shows that the detenu had suffered nine fading contusion marks which were of duration from 7 to 9 days. The report is dated 30-4-1986. Surely these injuries were there when the report was submitted by the respondent on 27-4-1986. In these circumstances, the charge stands established. However, the unconditional apology tendered by the respondent on 13-5-1986 and the fact that he was young and it was his first appointment and that he had made a report, for which he should have known better, was yet such that it does not show criminal intent though it may not be without blemish. However, the unconditional and unqualified apology tendered on 13-5-1986 may be considered in the light of the principles laid down by the learned Supreme Court of Pakistan in P L D 1970 S C 350.

3. The gentleman who had suffered the torture and the injuries, states that the respondent submitted a false report which is undisputable in the circumstances and he is, therefore, liable to suffer the consequences of his act to mislead the Court.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the answering respondent has read out the unconditional and unqualified apology tendered by the respondent on 13-5-1986 with emphasis. He has asked for forgiveness for his client from the person who has suffered the injuries on his personal claim as well of being a senior colleague of his. But without effect. He has also submitted that the answering respondent was issued a show-cause notice vide order dated 3-5-1986 and since his being aware thereof and filing of the reply--meaning thereof in the early part of May, 1986, the answering respondent has undergone the torture of apprehension of total ruination of a respectable, descent career which otherwise the answering respondent with his mind, education could legitimately expect and hope for and, therefore, has suffered enough.

5. I have heard the learned A . A .-G. , the gentleman who had suffered the injuries and about whom the report was called for and the learned counsel for the answering respondent. There is no doubt whatsoever that the report submitted by the answering respondent on 27-4-1986 was wrong and would be known to be wrong because it was being said that the person reporting was unable to find any injury when no less than nine were found by three Senior Doctors constituting the Board three days later and saying that the duration of the injuries was 7 to 9 days. The reason why did he submit a false report is also not far to be answered as stated by the learned counsel for the answering respondent. The latter had qualified as doctor in December, 1981. He got this job of Medical Officer on 4-4-1985 after waiting for four years. The appointment was the first and it was submitted by the learned counsel that it was the first report he was to make on 27-4-1986. Desire to be put on the right side of the administration employing him or the youth or inexperience would hardly justify making a false report in the judicial proceedings. The respondent should have known better and shown greater learning of his profession and of a gentleman, that f is to say, professional integrity. The respondent has submitted an unconditional and unqualified apology soon after the proceedings had been initiated in the first opportunity. The apology has been quoted above. It has been read with emphasis by the learned counsel for the respondent and the respondent had demonstrated his sincere acceptance of what has been read out. The principles laid down for consideration of apology originally in P L D 1964 S C 562 as approved in the judgment quoted by the learned Assistant Advocate-General i.e. P L D 1970 SC 350 are as follows:-

"(i) As to whether the contemner appreciated that his act was within the mischief of contempt;

(ii) Whether he regretted it;

(iii) Whether his regret was sincere;

(iv) Whether it was accompanied with expression of the resolution never to repeat again; and

(v) Whether he made humble submission to the authority of the Court. "

This case was heard yesterday and was left over for today. The submissions made by his learned counsel alongwith invoking his personal seniority in the profession with the person injured and seeking an apology and the demonstration of the respondent throughout the proceedings seen in conjuction with the apology tendered on 13-5-1986, leave no doubt that the respondent would have learnt the lesson of his life. If he is to do anything of the kind again, it would only show that either he has lost his head or perversion has set in'. There is no reason to believe that either eventuality is likely in view of the total submissions of the respondent added with his counsel's. I am satisfied that the apology deserves acceptance. It is so accepted and the notice issued is recalled. As regards the application filed by the detenu in response to the application of the respondent that the case be heard earlier as has to go abroad for his MRCP, that application has not yet been admitted. In the circumstances, no useful purpose would be served when the main case has already been disposed of. The two matters are, accordingly, disposed of .

M . Y . H . /S-88/ L

Find a Lawyer Near You

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