Ijaz-ul-Hassan, J.--Above titled appeal has been filed by the appellants calling in question judgment dated 6.11.1998 passed by learned larger Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, holding appellants guilty of contempt of Court and convicting and sentencing them accordingly.
2. The facts, which we have been able to gather from the record of the case are, that learned Ehtesab Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, on 13.10.1998, while framing charge in Ehtesab Reference No, 26 of 1998 titled "The State versus Ms Benazir Bhutto" Haji Ahmad Dildar (since dead) and Muhammad Hanif Tahir, Advocates, started shouting in the Court room attributing mala-fides and asserting that illegalities were being committed by learned Bench. They were direted not to interfere in the proceedings but they did not stop and used contemptuous language against the learned Judges. Learned Ehtesab Bench referred the matter to learned Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court for Constitution of larger Bench. Learned Chief Justice constituted a full Bench consisting of five learned Judges of the High Court. After hearing the appellant's counsel, learned larger Bench by order dated 6.11.1998 found appellants guilty of contempt of Court in terms of Article 2041 of the Constitution of the Islamic republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1976, and convicted them as under:--
(I) Haji Dildar Khan, to four months S.I. and a fine of Rs, 4000/-, or in default whereof, to further undergo S.I. for one month.
(II) Hanif Tahir, to 15 days S.I. and a fine of Rs, 1000/-, or in default whereof to undergo further S.I. for seven days.
(III) The convicts were held entitled to "A Class in Jail.
(IV)It was also directed that a reference be made to the Punjab Bar Council under Section 41 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Act, 1973 for initiating proceedings in respect of misconduct/indiscipline on the part of the appellants.
(V) Licences of the appellants to practice as Advocates, till the final decision by the Bar Council, under Section 41 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Council Act, 1973 were also suspended.
3. The appeal filed by appellants was dismissed for nonappearance and non-prosecution by order dated 16.5.2001. The same was restored by order dated 25.4.2008.
4. It may be mentioned at the very out set that Haji Dildar Khan, Appellant No, 1, expired during pendency of the appeal. The appeal to his extent stands abated.
5. Muhammad Hanif Tahir, Appellant No, 2, appeared in person and contended that the contempt proceedings were conducted in total disregard of existing law, relating to contempt of Court, i,e, the contempt of Court Ordinance 1998; that the show-cause notice issued to the appellants was absolutely vague, ambiguous and did not contain the contemptuous conduct and that learned larger Bench proceeded to punish the appellants without framing the charge as required by Section 7(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1976, denying the appellants their right of defence. In support of contentions, reliance was placed on Syed Masroor Ahsan and others versus Ardeshir Cowasjee and others, (PLD 1998 SC 823). Concluding the arguments, appellant invited our attention to para III of the impugned order dated 6.11.2008 and tried to reiterate that on the one hand, appellant has been found for lesser punishment in view of words uttered by him, whereas on the other hand, appellant has been dealt with severely without any justifiable reason.
6. Mr. M. Siddique Khan, learned Deputy Prosecutor General, representing the respondent, supported the impugned judgment.
7. The appellant has placed himself at the mercy of this Court stating that he has highest regard for the superior judiciary of Pakistan and cannot even think of committing contempt of Court. He has neither any intention to commit contempt of Court nor have ever done so. If any remarks of the appellant have given the impression of disrespect to any learned Judge of the Bench, he feel sorry for the same and regret the A same.
8. In view of the apology tendered by the appellant and having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, we allow the appeal, and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant. The licence of the appellant to practice as an Advocate stands restored. We make no order as to costs.