Find a Lawyer

Criminal Originals Nos. 26, 29 and 30 of 1986/BWP,' decided on 3rd September, 1986.

---S. 4--Contempt of Court--Unqualified apology--Slogans against judiciary raised in front of Court of Additional Sessions Judge--Notices issued after preliminary inquiry--Accused tendering unqualified apology and placing themselves at mercy of Court--Nature of contempt allegedly committed by accused, held, was so serious that heavy punishment both of imprisonment and fine for each contemptuous slogan would have been fully justified but accused having not accentuated contempt and by throwing themselves at mercy of Court without demur or qualification had purged themselves, and purpose of contempt proceedings had been achieved--Court not to be vindictive in contempt proceedings and would take due notice of sincere apology--Notices discharged as matter of grace and mercy in circumstances.

Shaheen Masood Rizvi, A.A.-G. for the State.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 3rd September, 1986.

The three Criminal Originals No. 26 of 1986/BWP against Amir Ali, Shaft Ashfaq Ahmad, Sh. Safdar, Siraj and Nasir Zaidi, Cr.Or. No.29 of 1986/BWP' against Sarwar Naz and 30 others including Amir All and 4 others, the aforesaid respondents and suo motu Cr.Or. No.30 of 1986/BWP. against Mumtaz Hussain Bazmi Advocate which I propose to dispose of through single judgment arise from an incident which took place on 17-6-1986 outside the Court room of Mr. Akhtar Naqi Naqvi, Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur.

2. A case under section 10/11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was registered against Hameed, Khalil and others vide F.I.R. No. 108 of 1986 at Police Sation Kotwali, Bahawalpur. Hameed and Khalil filed application for their pre-arrest bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur which was entrusted to Mr. Akhtar Naqi Naqvi, Additional Sessions Judge, who rejected it on 17-6-1986. After the rejection of the application, the supporters of Hameed and Khalil raised slogans of 'Murdabad' against police, executive, Additional Sessions Judge, Judiciary including superior Judiciary. The Assistant Commissioner submitted report to District Magistrate, Bahawalpur with regard to the law and order situation which arose after the announcement of the order in the bail application of Hameed and Khalil by Additional Sessions Judge. The learned District Magistrate sent -photostat copy of the report of A. C. to learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur who forwarded it to Additional Registrar, Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, which was placed before me on 18-6-1986. I directed that a file on Criminal original side be opened and placed before me for orders. The file so opened was placed before me on the same day and I issued notices to Amir Ali, Sufi Ashfaq Ahmad, Nasirul Hassan Zaidt, Siraj and Sh. Safdar for 22-6-1986 to show cause why proceedings under Contempt of Court Act be not initiated against them. The case came up before my learned brother Khizar Hayat, J. on 22-6-1986. Amir Ali and 4 others appeared in the Court and denied the allegations and raised the plea of false implication at the instance of Khan Muhammad S.I. Police. So the case was adjourned to 23-6-1986 for recording evidence. On 23-6-1986, the hearing of the case was adjourned on the ground of ailment of learned Assistant Advocate-General. On 5-7-1986 Yar Muhammad filed Cr.Or. No.29 of 1986/BWP relating to the same incidents against 31 persons including 5 respondents of Cr.Or. No. 26 of 1986/BWP. The application came up before my learned brother Khizar Hayat, J, who issued notices to respondents other than Amir Ali, Sufi Ashfaq Ahmad, Sh. Safdar, Siraj and Nasirul Hassan Zaidi, to show cause on 7-8-1986, why proceedings under Contempt of Court Act be not initiated against them. On 7-7-1986, the service of the respondents was incomplete, therefore, the case was adjourned to 12-7-1986 for service of remaining respondents. On 12-7-1986, the two Criminal Originals No.26 of 1986/BWP and 29 of 1986/BWP were fixed before me. I consolidated the proceedings. The respondents filed reply to the show-cause notice wherein they stated that they were prepared to take oath on Holy Quran that they were not present when contemptuous slogans were allegedly raised against judiciary. Since notices to 26 respondents of Cr.Or. No.29 of 1986 were to show cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated and preliminary inquiry was not made before issuing notices to them, therefore, I felt, the necessity of holding preliminary inquiry to sift the truth and stopped further action against the respondents directing that they need not appear till further orders and that the question of their prosecution will be considered in, the light of evidence recorded in preliminary inquiry. Thereafter, the learned Assistant Advocate-General produced Khan Muhammad S.I., Malik Khan Muhammad, City Magistrate, Ahmad Yar and Shah Jehan Abbasi P.Ws. Malik Khan Muhammad City Magistrate stated that on the eventful day on hearing noise he came out of his Court room and saw that about 33/35 persons had gathered near the Court room of Mr. Akhtar Naqi Naqvi, Additional Sessions Judge and were raising slogans against judiciary. They were shouting "Adalatyn murda bad Insaf murda bad adlia murd bad"". He could identify Sufi Ashfaq Ahmad only. Khan Muhammad S.I. stated that after the rejection of the bail application of Hameed and Khalil by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, about 35 supporters of Hameed accused gathered near the Court room of Mr.Akhtar Naqi Naqvi, Additional Sessions Judge and stated reaising slogans Supreme court murda bad ". He could identify Amir Ali, Sufi Ashfaq Ahmad, Sh. Safdar, Siraj Pathan, Nasirul Hassan Zaidi and Sarwar Naz. Ahmadyar made almost similar statement. He also involved Mumtaz Hussain High Court Murda bad, Insaf murda bad Bazmi, Advocate, Muhammad Alim, Muhammad Akbar, Mumtaz and Mehmood Ali Hashmi. Shah Jehan Abbasi P.W.4 stated that after the rejection of the bail application of Hameed and Khalil by the learned Additional Sessions Judge when Mumtaz Hussain Bazmi, counsel for Abdul Hameed accused came out of the Court room, some persons from the gathering asked him the reasons for the rejection of bail application whereupon he stated that since the initial , order was passed by a Judge of the High Court in this matter, therefore, the Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the application under influence of that order and simultaneously instigated the gathering against judiciary by saying that all Courts are "Bay aman". The witness further stated that Mumtaz Hussain Bazi, Advocate had also raised slogans shouting that Commissioner murda bad, Adliya murda bad, Depty Commissioner murda bad, D.I.G, murda bad . Since from the evidence recorded uring the pre imtnary inquiry it transpired that 11 persons namely, Amir Ali, Sufi Ashfaq Ahmad, Sh. Safdar, Siraj, Nasirul Hassan Zaidi, Sarwar Naz, Muhammad Alim, Muhammad Akbar, Mumtaz, Mehmood Ali Hashmi and Mumtaz Bazmi, Advocate had actively participated in the occurrence, therefore, I summoned them for trial under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, and adjourned the case to 19-7-1986. On 19-7-1986 after completing the requirements of section 7 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, I informed the accused of grounds on which they were charged with Contempt of Court and called upon them to show cause why they should not be punished for each slogan raised by them. The accused denied the charge and requested for time to file reply. On 2-9-1986, the accused except Sarwar Naz who by that time had been detained under section 3 of the Maintenance of Public Order by District Magistrate; Bahawalpur, filed reply tendering unqualified apology and placing themselves at the mercy of the Court. Mumtaz Hussain Bazmi also tendered unqualified apology and prayed for mercy. On this, I, for the reasons to be recorded later on, recalled the notices and adjourned the case for today i.e. 3-9-1986 for the production of Sarwar Naz from Jail. He too, has tendered unqualified apology today.

3. There can be no two opinions that tendering of unqualified apology amounts to admission of the charge. In view of the nature of contempt allegedly committed, it is very much obvious that but for apology the contempt is so serious that heavy punishment both of imprisonment and fine for each contemptuous slogan would have been fully justified so I proceed to consider the legal consequences of apology tendered by the accused. I find that no law or rule exists indicating or regulating the manner in which the Court have to act on tender of apology and the matter is entirely left to the discretion of Court. The determination of appropriate order on tendering of satisfactory apology thus depends upon the circumstances of each case and the Court can deal with the matter in its discretion in such a manner as would meet the ends of justice and fulfil the purpose of law or contempt. After having reviewed the apology tendered by the accused in the light of evidence recorded by the Court and the circumstances of the present case I find that in reply to the initial show-cause notice, the respondents stated that they were prepared to take oath on Holy Quran that they had not raised any slogan against the judiciary and that they respect the Courts from the core of their heart; that in reply to the final show-cause notice each accused other than Mumtaz Bazmi, Advocate stated:-

Mumtaz Hussain Bazmi, Advocate stated:-

"That the petitioner tenders unqualified apology and prays mercy".

that the language used in apology does not give any impression, that it is in any way conditional nor does it show that any', attempt at justification has been made; that the accused have not contested on factual side; that they have not accentuated contempt by holding out arguments; that they have placed themselves completely at the mercy of the Court; that Mumtaz Bazmi also exhibited spirit of manful confession and I found him fully repenting in the Court, somuch so, on one of the dates of hearing, he brought Holy Quran in the Court and prayed for forgiveness and that his conduct appears to be sincere and not a subterfuge to avoid punishment. The matter in which he exhibited his repentence in the Court furnishes sufficient evidence of purgation and real contribution. By throwing himself at the mercy of the Court without demur or qualification, he has not degraded himself but has certainly enhanced his worth, value and respect in the estimation of the Court because no one is so great as to consider tender of apology being beneath his dignity. For all these reasons, I am satisfied that the accused have purged themselves and the purpose of contempt proceedings against them has been achieved.

4. Since the High Court is never vindictive in matter of contempt and always takes due notice of sincere apologies, therefore, while following the golden principle that in contempt matter when the Court is satisfied that the accused has purged himself, the grace lies in forgiving than convicting a mercy seeker, I discharge the notices as a matter of grace and mercy.

S. A. Contempt 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.