' HASNAT AHMAD KHAN, J.---The facts which led to the issuance of notice under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan and section 3/4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, to the respondents are as under:-- ' That one Amjad Mehmood filed habeas corpus petition for the recovery of his daughter Mst.
Tosheeba Amjad who is about thirteen and half years old from the illegal and improper custody of Maskeen Ali, Shabbir Hussain, Ansar Mehmood and Muhammad Akram respondents herein. The said petition came up for hearing before this Court on 22-12-2006 and a Bailiff was detailed to recover the said alleged detenue namely Mst. Tosheeba Amjad from the illegal custody of above mentioned respondents and of her production before this Court. In pursuance of said order Mr. Ehsan-ul-Haq Bailiff visited police station Sadar on 23-12-2006 and in the company of police officials raided the house of above said respondents at 6-30 p.m. According to his report which was submitted on 27-12-2006, he entered the house of said respondents after introducing himself along with police officials. The petitioner of said case pointed out the presence of his daughter in a room and before the Bailiff could ask anything from the alleged detenue, all the above mentioned respondents stopped him from entering into the said room and after a short while they caused disappearance of the detenue and despite his repeated demands, they failed to produce the detenue and forcibly turned out the Bailiff from the house. In the meanwhile according to the report of the Bailiff, the police officials stood as silent spectators and refused to render any assistance to him. Muhammad Akram respondent misbehaved with the Bailiff and called him as a Dacoit. He had audacity to say that he does not care any Court. The Bailiff further reported that all the respondents except Muhammad Akram received the notices and assured to produce the detenue in the Court on 27-12-2006. After boarding the vehicle, Muhammad Akram respondent abused and gave a forceful fist blow to the petitioner on his face who was sitting on the rear seat of the vehicle.
On 27-12-2006 the above said Criminal Miscellaneous bearing No,1422-H/2006 came up for hearing before me and the Bailiff submitted his report dated 27-12-2006 which has been placed on the record of this case as Mark-A. Neither the above mentioned respondents opted to appear before this Court on the said date in pursuance of the notices issued to them by the Bailiff nor they cared to produce the detenue in accordance with their commitment. The report of the Bailiff disclosed that the above mentioned respondents had committed grave contempt of Court.
Therefore, this Court was compelled to issue non-bailable warrants for their arrest. The S.H.O.Police Station Sadar, Gujrat, was directed to produce them along with detenue namely Mst. Tosheeba Amjad on 4-1-2007 and taking suo motu action on the report of the Bailiff, notices under section 3/4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, read with Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan were ordered to be issued to the said respondents and a similar notice was issued to Nasir Mehmood, S.H.O. Also. Said notice has been attached as Mark-B.
2. In pursuance of said order, Maskeen Ali, Shabbir Hussain, Ansar Mehmood and Muhammad Akram respondents were arrested and detenue was recovered and produced before this Court on 4-1-2007. In view of the statement of the detenue that she was not willing to join her father, habeas corpus petition was disposed of on the said date. However, contempt petition bearing Criminal Original No,1 of 2007 (Suo Motu) was taken up on the said date. In response to the above mentioned notices which had been issued to and received by the above mentioned respondents, the said respondents did not opt to file any written reply. However, Nasir Mehmood Inspector/S.H.O.
Stated that at the time of raid, he was not accompanying the Bailiff and in fact Mumtaz Ahmad S.I., Muhammad Afzal F.C. No,873 and Shakarullah F.C. No,608 were accompanying the Bailiff at the relevant time. Being confronted with the said statement, Bailiff did not controvert said factual position and admitted the same as correct. In view of the said statement, notices under section 3/4 of Contempt of Court Act, 1976, read with Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan were ordered to be issued to the said police officials on the said date. Mumtaz Ahmad S.I. Who was present in Court on said date accepted the notice. Formal notice was issued to them and received by them, copy of which has been placed as Mark-C. The case was adjourned to 5-1-2007. On said date Muhammad Afzal and Shakarullah above mentioned constables also appeared. Even on said date, none of the respondents opted to file written reply to the notice. However, keeping in view the provision of section 7(2) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, another opportunity was given to all the contemnors to explain their conduct, whereby the Bailiff of this Court was misbehaved with. In response to said order, none of the contemnors opted to admit the guilt or to tender apology, on the contrary all of them controverted the averments made by the Bailiff in his report dated 27-12- 2006. Maskeen Ali respondent stated that he did not misbehave with the Bailiff, Ansar Mehmood raised the plea of alibi by claiming that he was not present at the spot at the time of raid.
Muhammad Akram and Shabbir Hussain respondents also denied the allegations leveled by the Bailiff in his above mentioned report, Mumtaz Ahmad S.I., Afzal Ahmad and Shakarullah constables also followed the rest of the respondents and refused to admit their fault. As all the respondents had opted to contest the notices, order of framing of charge was passed by this Court. The charge was accordingly framed against all the above mentioned contemnors/respondents and duly explained to them. When the charge was put to the contemnors, they took a somersault and admitted the guilt and all of them threw themselves at the mercy of the Court and sought forgiveness. As the charge was not denied, there was no need to record any evidence.
3. As the apology was not tendered at the earliest and the same was only tendered after framing of the charge, this Court refused to straightway discharge all the contemnors on the basis of said apology and both the sides were asked to advance the arguments. It would be relevant to point out here that private respondents were represented by Mr. Hammad Raza, Advocate, while police officials were not being represented by any counsel. In reply to a question in this regard, they stated that they did not want to engage their counsel and they would conduct their own case.
4. Both the sides put their respective arguments and the case was adjourned for 6-1-2007 to hear rest of the arguments. On said date, Mr. Saif-ul-Malook, Advocate, submitted his power of attorney on behalf of private respondents as well as police official and sought permission to argue the case on behalf of the contemnors. He was allowed to do so. After arguing the case on merits, he sought some time to produce the case law and his request to that extent acceded to and case was again taken up after one and half hours.
5. Learned Prosecutor has argued that as all the contemnors have admitted their guilt, the charge framed against them stand fully established and proved. He has argued that the contemnors are guilty of commission of grave contempt of Court, inasmuch as, the order of this Court was disregarded and flouted and hindrance was caused in due process of law, the Bailiff of this court was misbehaved with by all the respondents. The detenue was not handed over to him as directed by this Court, especially Muhammad Akram respondent called the Bailiff as Dacoit and while the Bailiff was returning in a vehicle along with petitioner, Muhammad Akram contemnor abused and gave a fist blow to the petitioner who at the relevant time was under the umbrella of the Bailiff who was deputed by this Court. Muhammad Akram refused to receive the notice and rest of the contemnors namely Maskeen Ali, Shabbir Hussain and Ansar Mehmood though received notices yet did not opt to appear before this Court as directed by this Court and furthermore, they did not opt to produce the detenue before this Court on the relevant time, though, they had made commitment in this regard with the Bailiff of this Court. He further contends that conduct of the respondents showed that they had shown scant regard to this Court and said conduct coupled with the innocuous remarks given against the Bailiff and the Court has made them liable to be convicted for committing Contempt of Court and he prayed that they be awarded exemplary punishment. As far as the police officials are concerned, he had contended that they being men in uniform and member, of the discipline force were bound to give proper assistance to the Bailiff but they remained silent spectators while the Bailiff was being, misbehaved with. Even otherwise, as one of the respondents had given beating to the petitioner in their presence, they failed to arrest them in accordance with law and as such they are also fully responsible for the act of the other respondents. In support of his arguments he has placed reliance upon case-law reported as "PLD 1999 Lah. 156, 2002 SCMR 1623".
6. In response to the arguments advanced by the learned Prosecutor, learned counsel for the contemnors has contended that the contemnors have sought forgiveness after placing themselves at the mercy of the court and as such, notice issued to them is liable to be discharged and also the contemnors are entitled to the acquittal. According to him, the apology has purged the offence. In support of his arguments he has placed reliance upon the judgments reported as "Raja Munawar v. The State 1990 SCMR 215, PLD 1964 SC 562 and PLD 1989 Kar. 264".In the alternative, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that if the court comes to the conclusion that apology tendered by the contemnors has not purged the offence, the same may be treated as mitigating circumstances while awarding the sentence.
7. As all the respondents have confessed their guilt and have placed them at the mercy of the Court, the charge against them .Stands fully proved. There is thus no doubt that the respondents are guilty of flouting and disobeying the order of this Court which they were legally bound to honour and they have brought the authority of this Court into disrespect. Now the question remains as to whether the apology tendered by the contemnors would ipso facto purge the offence and notice would be liable to be discharged. It is observed that there is no denying the fact that if the apology is found to be sincere, the same is normally accepted as the High Court is never vindictive and always take due notice of sincere apology. Now the next question which has to be seen is that whether in this case the apology is sincere or not. In this regard it is observed that the accused did not straightway seek forgiveness and firstly they tried to contest the notice and denied the averments of the Bailiff made in this report and reiterated by him in the Court. In their statements dated 4-1-2007 before the Court they stated that the Bailiff was not misbehaved with and some of them even refused their presence at the time of the raid. Police officials also stated that the Bailiff was not misbehaved with and the apology was tendered by all of them only after seeing the fate of the case and framing of charge. It would be also relevant to point out that the apology was not tendered in the written form and all of them simply sought forgiveness. Such type of apology B cannot be accepted and the same cannot purge the offence. Even otherwise, the contemnors cannot claim acquittal as a matter of right and whenever leniency is shown that is by way of grace and concession. Reliance in this regard is placed upon "The State v. Rana Muhammad Akram 1983 PCr.LJ 188". The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the contemnors is quite distinguishable.
8. The proceedings in contempt matters are sui generous and are species of its own kind. These are neither civil nor criminal in nature and same are quasi criminal proceedings. It has been nowhere laid down that the allegation in the nature of contempt shall be dealt with like a criminal charge as laid down in Criminal Procedure Code.
9. As the apology was neither tendered at the earliest nor the same was found to be sincere one, the same cannot ipso facto purge the offence.
10. Now, I would like to deal the case of all the contemnors individually. In this case, Muhammad Akram respondent played the leading role while disobeying and disregarding the order of this Court and misbehaving with the Bailiff. According to the report of the Bailiff, he not only misbehaved with the Bailiff called him as a Dacoit and further went on to utter innocuous remarks against this Court. As such, he had committed gross contempt of Court amounting to impairing the dignity and authority of this court and he is found to be guilty of interference with the administration of justice and process of law. Apart from that he had caused fist blow to the petitioner of the habeas corpus petition while he was under the umbrella of the Bailiff. His apology is mechanical and is not sufficient to purge him from the willful noncompliance and disobedience of the order of this Court. Like others, he also tendered the apology in order to escape the punishment. This Court has to uphold the dignity and decorum and authority of the court to see that process, direction and orders issued by it are enforced throughout the Province and in case of disobedience and disregard shown on the part of any person, this court would not be reluctant to act in accordance with contempt law to punish wrong doers. The contemptuous act of Muhammad Akram respondent demanded full dose of sentence but keeping the fact into consideration that he did not opt to contest the petition and threw himself at the mercy of the Court, said apology is being treated as a mitigating circumstance and he is convicted under Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan read with section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act and sentenced to two months' S.I. With fine of Rs,4,000 in default whereof, he would suffer further simple imprisonment of fifteen days.
11. As far as Shabbir Hussian, Ansar Mehmood and Maskeen Ali respondents are concerned, they are equally liable for the offence of Contempt of Court as they are also guilty of misbehaving with the Bailiff and apart from that they failed to appear before the Court, though, they had received the notices even they did not cause appearance of the detenue on the first date and she was only produced after non-bailable warrants were issued against them, but their role being of lesser decree than that of Muhammad Akram, the apology tendered by them is being treated as a mitigating circumstance. They are accordingly convicted and sentenced to fifteen days' S.I. With a fine of Rs,1000 each, in default whereof, five days' S.I. Under the above mentioned provisions of law and Constitution.
12. As far as the case of Mumtaz Ahmad S.I. Is concerned. He had also confessed the guilt. The contempt of Court was being committed right in his presence, but he remained as silent spectator and though all the authorities are expected to act in aid of the Courts, he failed to provide necessary assistance to the Bailiff and in this way he abetted the offence and became cause of lowering the authority of this Court and bringing into disrespect. He became instrument in prejudicing the process of law, therefore, his apology which is also not sincere one is also not accepted. However, the same is treated as a mitigating circumstance and he is also convicted and sentenced under the above said provisions to fifteen days' S.I. With a fine of Rs,1000, in default whereof, five days' S.I. As far as the constables are concerned, they have also admitted their guilt, but keeping the fact into consideration that they were under the command of their superior, their role is quite lesser than that of their superior i,e, Mumtaz Ahmad, S.I. And as such, they are only convicted and sentenced till rising of the Court. As far as Nasir Mehmood, S.H.O. Is concerned, it has come on the record that he has not accompanied the Bailiff at the relevant time, as such, notice issued to him is discharged.
13. Maskeen Ali, Muhammad Akram, Shabbir Hussian and Ansar Mehmood are already in the police custody, they be lodged in the District Jail, Gujrat, to serve out their sentences. Likewise Mumtaz Ahmad S.I. He be also sent to said Jail for serving out the sentence. Disposed of.
14. Before parting with the judgment, I would like to appreciate the able assistance rendered to this Court by the learned Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the contemnors.