This is a petition for initiating proceedings in contempt against Mr. M. M. Hanafi and Mr. G. M. Beg, Chief Manager and Senior Officer of the Grindlays Bank Ltd., respectively, and Mr. Yusuf Ali Khan, an Advocate of this Court. The petitioner is also an Advocate of this Court. He was engaged by the Grindlays Bank Lid., to institute a civil suit for the recovery of some amount. He was provided with necessary funds for this purpose. On 25March. 1978, in the belief that the petitioner had not filed the suit and had misappopriated the money given to him on that account, Mr. M. M. Hanafi got a case registered against him under sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code at the local Police Station. The petitioner secured bail before arrest from the Court of Session on 8t)t April, 1978.
Subsequently, on 5July, 1978, the Ilaqa Magistrate cancelled the case. On 2December, 1978, despite the cancellation of the case, the Bank made an application to this Court for the cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner by tire Court of Sessions. On 4th March 1979 the petitioner moved this petition for taking action under the law of contempt against the respondents.
2. The case of the petitioner is that at the time of moving the application for cancellation of his bail the respondents were fully aware that the case had since been cancelled by the Ilaqa Magistrate.
He alleged that by a letter dated 30th November, 1978 he had informed the bank about the order of the Ilaqa Magistrate. Nevertheless the respondents bore malice against him and in order to pursue personal vendetta they approached this Court for cancellation of bail by concealing the fact that the case had since been cancelled. The sole motive, he further alleged, for their doing so was to defame him amongst his friends and colleagues in the Bar of Lahore High Court.
3. The respondents filed a joint written statement in their defence. Their main plea was that they were unaware of the order of the Ilaqa Magistrate whereby the case was cancelled. They alsoth th nd alleged that they learnt about the said order for the first time in March 1979, that is, long after the application for cancellation of bail was moved.
4. The onus of proving that the respondents knew about the order of the Ilaqa Magistrate at the time when they filed the application for cancellation of bail was upon the petitioner. To discharge his burden in this regard he examined five witnesses. They were Inayat Ullah (P. W. 1) Noor Mohammad (P. W. 2), J. S. P. Singha (P. W. 3), Mohammad Shafi (P. W: 4) and Anwar Hussain (P. W.
5). The purpose of the petitioner in examining these witnesses was to show that he had sent a letter in the end of November 1978 to the bank wherein he had stated that the criminal case against him stood cancelled.
5. Inayat Ullah (P. W. 1), an Ahmad of a civil Court, deposed about an application made in a civil suit which was pending between the petitioner and the Grindlays Bank Ltd. His evidence is entirely irrelevant to the matter before me and this was conceded by petitioner's counsel while this witness was still in the witness-box. Noor Mohammad (P. W. 2) was receipt and despatch clerk of the Grindlays Bank Ltd. He described the procedure how the dak in the bank was received, entered and distri--buted. He categorically denied that he had received any letter from the petitioner between November 1978, and January 1979. Mohammad Shafi (P. W. 4) was a record-clerk employed in the General Post Office, Lahore. He stated that according to his record a registered letter bearing No. 3698 was delivered by the postman at the Grindlays Bank Ltd. Anwar Hussain (P. W. 5) was a retired postman. He deposed that in November 1978, he was given a registered letter bearing No. 3698 for distribution and that he had delivered the said letter to the officer concerned in the Grindlays Bank.
Exh. P. 2 is the postal receipt which Muhammad Shafi had obtained at the time of delivering the letter.
6. The evidence of Muhammad Shafi (P. W. 4) and Anwar Hussain (P. W. 5) no doubt indicates that the registered letter No. 3698 was delivered to the official concerned in the Grindlays Bank Ltd. On 30th November 1978. However, there is no evidence which may indicate as to who was the sender of the letter and what were the contents of that letter. The postal receipt (Exh. P. 3) does not indicate who was B the sender of this letter as the relevant record therein is eligible. The petitioner himself did not care to appear in the witness-box to aver that the said letter was in fact sent by him. When Noor Muhammad (P. W. 2) appeared in the witness-box the petitioner did not ask him to trace the said letter from the record of the Bank. In the circumstances it is not possible to hold as to who was the sender of registered letter No. 3698 or that it contained information with regard to the cancellation of the criminal case.
7. Mr. J. S. P. Singha (P. W. 3) was the Manager of the Grindlays Bank Ltd., when the application for cancellation of bail was moved before this Court. He stated that he did not remember if he had received any registered letter from the petitioner on 30th November 1978. Though this reply is non- committal, but it does not warrant the drawing of any adverse inference. As Bank's manager he would have received dozens of letters from different persons. He could hardly be expected to remember all the letters which he had received on any particular day more than a year and a half later. Therefore, his evidence also does not help the case of the petitioner.
8. After the evidence of Anwar Hussain (P. W. 5) has been recorded the petitioner made a request that Mr. J. S. P. Singha should be recalled and examined again. Before this request was made Mr. Singha had been transferred to Karachi. In order to give full opportunity to the petitioner to prove his case I was quite prepared to grant his request, but then as Mr. Singha was being recalled on the petitioner's desire it was only fair that he should bear the necessary expenses. Accordingly I called upon the petitioner to deposit an amount equivalent to return airfare (economy class) plus Rs. 100 for diet money and other incidental expenses. The petitioner declined to deposit this amount and said that he was prepared to deposit only Rs. 264 which was more than second class fare for journey by rail between Karachi and Lahore. Considering the status of Mr. Singba and the dislocation to the work of the Bank which was likely to be caused by a prolonged journey by train I did not accept the offer of the petitioner. As the petitioner was not prepared to make the deposit in terms of my order I did not resummon Mr. Singha.
9. At the conclusion of his evidence the petitioner frankly conceded that he had not been able to establish that the respondents knew that the criminal case against him had been cancelled when they applied to this Court for the cancellation of his bail. Consequently I dismiss this application with costs.