' KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD SHARIF, J.---On a Reference received from the learned District & Sessions Judge, Lahore, submitted by the then learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Model Town Lahore(Miss Shazia Zafar Raja), these proceedings under the Contempt of Court were initiated against Ch. Shahid Hussain Advocate/respondent, who in reply to the said Reference, submitted reply, made statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. And evidence of both the parties was recorded. To reach at a just decision of the case, this Court even recorded statement of the C.Ws and D.Ws. Full opportunity was granted to both the parties.
2. Dr. Muhammad Akmal Saleemi, Advocate for respondent, Ch. Shahid Hussain, Advocate, while defending the respondent, vehemently argued that the time and date given in the charge sheet and the complaint submitted by learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Model Town Lahore (Miss Shazia Zafar Raja)/complainant, who appeared as P.W.1 in support of her case, is totally contradictory; that on the time and date given by the learned Civil Judge no case of the respondent was pending in her Court no question of any untoward incident arises; that not a single Advocate came forward to support her case rather they supported the case of Mr. Shahbaz Bhatti, Advocate who complained against her attitude upon which the Model Town Bar passed a resolution against her misbehaviour with the Advocate; that in her cross-examination she alleged that Ch. Iftikhar, Advocate had locked the Court room from outside but surprisingly neither he was cited as a witness nor accused meaning thereby that the allegations were based on hearsay; that according to the complainant, she was informed by the Reader of her Court but the said Reader has not supported her version; that the allegation against the respondent to have a forged degree of LL.B. Degree was found to be false because the same was verified by the Punjab Bar Council; that the complainant herself, at page 7 of her statement , acknowledged that after 11-45 a.m. The case was adjourned to 5th April and that the allegation of Shahbaz Bhatti, Advocate levelled against her through a complaint before the Punjab Bar Council has not been denied by her. While coming to the statement of P.W.2 Raheela Umar, the then learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Faisalabad, learned counsel for the respondent adds that P.W.2 has categorically admitted that she had not made any complaint against the respondent Advocate during the tenure in Model Town Courts and that there was no personal quarrel between P.W.2 and the respondent Advocate. While advancing his case, learned counsel for the respondent further adds that D.W.1 Mr.Muhammad Shahbaz Khan Bhatti, Advocate, has owned his complaint filed against the complainant who supported version of the respondent Advocate. So far as statement of D.W.2 Mr. Mehmud-ur- Rahshid Dogar, Advocate, is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent further adds that he has supported case of the respondent and denied qua happening of any occurrence of the kind alleged by the complainant on 18th March in her Court. While referring to the statement of D.W.3 Mr.Qamar Pervaiz Zia, Advocate, he argues that D.W.3 acknowledged the occurrence of 25th March, 2004 qua complaint of Mr.Shahbaz Bhatti, Advocate. He further argues that as per D.W.3 transfer of the complainant from the Model Town Courts was due to the efforts of the learned Members of the Bar. Learned counsel added that actually C.Ws were P.Ws, who refused to support complainant's version, they came, appeared, did not support her version and they have categorically stated that there was no mishap by the respondent Advocate in the Court of learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Model Town Lahore (Miss Shazia Zafar Raja)/complainant. While concluding his submissions, learned counsel for the respondent contended that since the complaint has not been supported by any affidavit nor any evidence while the respondent Advocate has proved his innocence through documentary as well as oral evidence, therefore, he is entitled acquittal from this Reference. Apart from above, learned counsel further contended that the respondent Advocate has surrendered himself before this Court and submits apology as he has utmost respect for the judicial institutions and the learned Presiding Officers being part of Courts.
3. The learned Additional Advocate General Punjab Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, while' making submissions in support of this Reference, contended that the learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Model Town Lahore(Miss Shazia Zafar Raja) has appeared as P.W.1 and has supported the complaint filed by her against the respondent through the learned District & Sessions Judge Lahore; that in her statement she has explained that on the date and time of occurrence, a bail petition of the respondent Advocate was dismissed, he came in her Court in an angry position and used indecent language against her in retaliation to the dismissal of his above said bail petition, she has explained that the respondent Advocate had insisted for the grant of bail on the ground of compromise but since the offence was non-compoundable, so, the bail was refused by her which was strictly in accordance with law and she was not supposed to oblige her, due to indecent behaviour of the respondent she had to leave the Court Room, she has further stated in her statement that even she was followed in her Chamber and the routine work of the Court was intervened and she has fully supported the allegations levelled against Ch. Shahid Hussain Advocate/respondent in her above statement on Oath. The learned Additional Advocate General Punjab Ch.Muhammad Hanif Khatana, while referring to the statement of P.W.2 Raheela Umar, the then learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Faisalabad, has contended that the said P.W.2 has specifically stated about the general behaviour of Ch. Shahid Hussain Advocate/respondent with her during her tenure in the Model Town Courts and has specifically quoted the indecent language used by the respondent Advocate against her which is yet another factor in support of complaint's case. The learned Public Prosecutor, while giving reference to the statement of D.W.1 Mr. Muhammad Shahbaz Khan Bhatti, Advocate and D.W.2 Mr. Memoodur Rashid Dogar, Advocate, submits that they have admitted that they were not present in the Court Room of learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Model Town Lahore(Miss Shazia Zafar Raja) at the time of occurrence, their information conveyed to this Court through their statements is only hearsay which cannot be believed as defence evidence, they have merely talked about the general conduct of learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Model Town Lahore (Miss Shazia Zafar Raja)/complainant towards the lawyers and about the meetings held against her by the learned Members of the Bar. As far as statements of C.W.1 Abdul Sattar, Ex-Reader and C.W.2 Muhammad Arshad, ExNaib Court/HC to the Court of the then learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Model Town Lahore (Miss Shazia Zafar Raja) though they have not fully supported the prosecution case but have admitted about the incident having taken place. While concluding his submissions, the learned Public Prosecutor added that there is sufficient evidence in the form of statements of P.W.1 the learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Model Town Lahore(Miss Shazia Zafar Raja)/complainant and P.W.2 Raheela Umar, the then learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Faisalabad, about the conduct of Ch. Shahid Hussain Advocate/respondent; that the respondent Advocate has tendered "conditional apology" and too at the end of the arguments and not at an early stage.
4. I have heard learned counsel for Ch. Shahid Hussain Advocate/ respondent at a great length, the learned Additional Advocate General Punjab Ch. Muhammad Hanif Khatana as a Public Prosecutor, have given anxious consideration to their respective submissions and have also gone through the statement P.W.1 the then learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Model Town Lahore(Miss Shazia Zafar Raja) who is complainant of the case, P.W.2 Raheela Umar, the then learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Faisalabad, D.W.1 Mr. Muhammad Shahbaz Khan Bhatti, Advocate, D.W.2 Mr.Mehmoodur Rashid Dogar, Advocate, D.W.3 Mr.Qamar Pervaiz Zia, Advocate, C.W.1 Abdul Sattar, Ex-Reader and C.W.2 Muhammad Arshad, Ex-Naib Court to the Court of the then learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Model Town Lahore (Miss Shazia Zafar Raja) coupled with perusal of the other documents available on the record.
5. P.W.1 the then learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Model Town Lahore (Miss Shazia Zafar Raja), who is also complainant of the case, appeared in support of her instant complaint.
P.W.1/complainant produced P.W.2 Raheela Umar, the then learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, Faisalabad in support of her case to prove the contempt of Courts proceedings against the respondent Advocate. She was neither an eyewitness to the incident alleged against the respondent Advocate qua his misbehaviour towards the P.W.1 on 18-3-2004. She almost talked about the misbehaviour of the respondent Advocate towards the learned Judicial Officers but she did not adduce anything to prove the said allegation, so, her statement is of no avail to the complainant. The prosecution had to produce two P.Ws, namely, Abdul Sattar, ex-Reader and Muhammad Arshad, ex-Naib Court to the Court of the then learned Civil Judge/Magistrate Ist Class, Model Town Lahore (Miss Shazia Zafar Raja) but failed where after on the application of the respondent Advocate, vide this Court's order dated 11-11-2005, they were summoned as Court Witnesses to reach at a just decision of the case. Statement of the respondent Advocate Ch Shahid Hussian was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.0 whereby he has categorically denied the allegations levelled against him. He produced three D.Ws in defence. D.W.1 is Mr. Muhammad Shahbaz Khan Bhatti, D.W.2 is Mr. Mehmoodur Rashid Dogar, Advocate while D.W.3 is Mr.Qamar Pervaiz Zia, Advocate.
6. I may mention here that P.W.1 the then learned Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Model Town Lahore(Miss Shazia Zafar Raja) cited her Reader and Naib Court as P.Ws. Who did not step forward, then on the application of the respondent Advocate and in order to reach at a just decision of the case, both of them were called as C.Ws, namely, C.W.1 Abdul Sattar, Ex-Reader and C.W.2 Muhammad Arshad, Ex-Naib Court. C.W.1, in his examination in chief, narrated about an occurrence qua pushing of file by P.W.1 towards Mr. Shahbaz Bhatti, Advocate but he said nothing about the misbehaviour of the respondent Advocate with the complainant on the date and time alleged in the complaint. C.W.1 was recalled and cross-examined by the learned Additional Advocate General Punjab in which too he denied qua happening of any occurrence of the kind alleged. Rather he mostly talked about the protest of the lawyers against the complainant qua her harsh attitude towards the learned Advocates in the Model Town Courts. At the end, C.W.1 stated that "on 18-3-2004 respondent Shahid Hussain had not misbehaved with Miss Shazia Zafar Raja, Judicial Magistrate and neither respondent nor his Junior entered into the retiring room of said Judicial Magistrate and misbehaved with her on 25-3-2004". Similar is the position of C.W.1 Muhammad Arshad who, in his examination in chief and in cross-examination, stated about a quarrel between Mr. Muhammad Shahbaz Khan Bhatti, Advocate but denied qua any misbehaviour by the respondent Advocate with the learned Judicial Magistrate as alleged by her. He also denied to have taken place any quarrel between the respondent Advocate and P.W.2 Raheela Umar; the then Judicial Magistrate. If the analysis of the evidence adduced by both the parties is kept in juxtaposition this Court is of the affirmed view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the respondent Advocate while the respondent Advocate has proved his innocence and the evidence brought by him on the record is more reliable, convincing and confidence inspiring. It was also alleged by the complainant that the respondent Advocate has a forged LL.B. Degree but she did not adduce anything before this Court to prove the said allegation. So at this stage, this Court cannot comment on this aspect of the case because it is for the competent forums to adjudicate upon the matter i,e, the concerned Institution concerned and the Disciplinary Committee of the Punjab Bar Council. Apart from above, though at later stage, his learned counsel Dr. Muhammad Akmal Saleemi,. Advocate, while concluding his arguments, has tendered apology on behalf of the respondent Advocate with an undertaking that the respondent Advocate has utmost respect and regard for the judiciary and its all organs. This Court, during the course of proceedings in hand, spreading over about two years, minutely kept an eye on the attitude of the respondent Advocate and noted that he acted like a man of normal prudence which is yet another factor in his favour'. Therefore, the instant proceedings initiated against the respondent Advocate are hereby dropped requiring no penal action. After having conducted these proceedings this Court has reached at a conclusion that both the sides i,e, the complainant and the respondent Advocate had made it a matter of prestige and did forget that only those people are "noble" who are noble by their acts towards the others which are called "Haqooqul Ibaad". However, since some crucial aspects of the case have come into the notice of this Court and since without cordial relation, between both these organs (i,e, Bar and the Bench) peaceful atmosphere cannot be created, therefore, this Court is inclined to direct the respondent Advocate to further improve his behavior towards the learned Presiding Officers of the Court of law so that mutual harmony may prevail and nobody should suffer. Before parting with this judgment, I may observe here that, at the same time, the learned Presiding Officers may follow the instructions issued from time to time by the Superior Courts of the Country qua their attitude towards the learned Advocates and the litigant public to avoid any untoward incident in future. It would create confidence of the people in both these Important organs of the judiciary. At the last I must observe here that it was only due to lack of "tolerance" on the part of both the sides that, firstly, the matters cropped up into the form of resolutions by the learned Members of the Bar and, secondly, led to the filing of the instant contempt of Court proceedings-which was a painful study for me.