'IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---By filing the present petition under sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 Abdul Quddus Mughal, petitioner has prayed as under:--- "Under the circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that the contempt proceedings may kindly be initiated against the respondents and they may also be punished in accordance with law.
'Any other appropriate relief to which this honourable Court deems fit may also be punished in accordance with law."
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that this Court had passed a judgment on 3-9-2009 in Writ Petition No,16096 of 2009 whereby it was dirIcted to maintain the ex-mill price of sugar at rate of Rs,36 per kg while retail price at rate of Rs,40 per kg respectively. Respondent No,2 categorically in his statement as well as in a programme of GEO Network in the presence of Mr. Farooq Bajwa, Advocate said that the order of the High Court would neither be accepted nor would be implemented, rather he spoke out in contemptuous manner while passing his remarks that the Court could implement the order itself and they were not ready to do so. Respondent No,2 while holding a Press Conference also spoke in the same contemptuous manner and disregarded the status of this Court while passing such derogative remarks about the aforementioned judgment of this Court. The respondents were duty bound to follow the directions contained in the said judgment of this Court that the sale of the sugar was to be made at ex-mill price of Rs,36 per kg and Rs,40 per kg in retail but they intentionally and wilfully failed to comply with the said judgment of this Court despite the fact that the judgment of this Court still holds the field. It is also stated that respondent No,1 (Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo), Minister for Industries and Production, Government of Pakistan while holding a Press Conference as well as through print media had also uttered derogatory remarks about the aforesaid judgment of this Court to the effect that the High Court might ensure implementation of the said judgment after appointing its own Tehsildars to maintain the prices of sugar as directed by it. The acts of the said respondents are severely contemptuous and they are liable to be punished accordingly.
3. This petition came up for hearing before this Court on 24-9-2009 and the notice was issued to the respondents to show cause as to why they should not be convicted under Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 read with Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 for 8- 10-2009 when the request was made on behalf of respondents for submitting their replies.
Moreover, on the said date C.M. No,3895 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for placing on record certain documents was allowed. This case was adjourned for 22-10-2009 when all the respondents filed their replies except respondent No,4, who was directed to file the reply on "3-11-2009. Then this case was taken up on 2-12-2009 and adjourned to 18-12-2009, when the notice to the extent of respondents 4 and 5 while observing as under:--- "We have carefully gone through the contents of the contempt petition. There is nothing against respondents Nos.4 and 5. No specific allegation has been levelled against them. They are present in Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that their names may be deleted from the array of the respondent. To their extent, notice issued is discharged."
'Now the petition has been left only against respondents Nos.1 to 3.
'Mr. Shafqat Mehmood Chohan, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo has committed contempt of the Court as he had made a statement on 5-9-2009 before the Qaima Committee of the National Assembly that High Court should itself implement the order as the Federal Government had no Tehsildars or Thanedars to implement the said order; that the said statement was flashed in the daily `Nawa-i-Waqt dated 5-9-2009 and daily 'Express'; that respondent was not an ordinary man being a Minister of the Federal Government and elected MNA, who could not be expected of making such contemptuous statement, which has defamed the image of this Court in the eyes of the general public, but being a public functionary he was bound to give respect and dignity to the orders of this Court; that the said news was also repeatedly flashed in the electronic media. He has relined upon The State v. Sir Edward Snelson, KBE, Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Law PLD 1961 (W.P.) Lah. 78, Sir Edward Snelson, KB, Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Law PLD 1961 Supreme Court 237, The State v.
Mir Abdul Qayyum, Advocate PLD 1964 (W.P.) Lahore 661, Mashal Khan v. The State 1975 SCM R 80 and Feroze Akbar v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Aviation Wing, Rawalpindi and 2 others 2002 SCM R 1623. It is contended that unconditional apology was not accepted in the above cited case and the respondent in the said case was convicted till rising of the Court with a fine of Rs,3000; that the conduct of the respondent No,1 is that he had never clarified the said news item on the print as well as the electronic media alleging that he had not stated so and scandalized this Court. As regard Sikandar, Chairman, Pakistan Sugar Mills Association and Javed Kiani, Zonal Chief, Pakistan Sugar Mills Association (respondents Nos.2 and 3) it is contended that during the Press Conference they had also uttered such words of contemptuous nature, who should be punished as well.
5. On the other hand, Syed All Zafar, Advocate on behalf of Mian Manzoor Ahmad Wattoo, respondent No,1 contends that respondent No,1 respects the Courts, who has never disregarded the orders of any court during his 40 years political career, but he has always maintained the dignity and respect of the Courts; that respondent No,1 categorically stated that the Federal Government would implement the orders passed by this Court; that the judgment of this Court was announced on 3-9-2009 while the meeting of the Qaima Committee was held on 4-9-2009 and he made various submissions to the Committee, but never uttered the words which were flashed in the newspapers and no reliance can be placed thereon for holding respondent No,1 guilty for the contempt of Court keeping in view the written reply submitted by him and on 4-9-2009 he disclosed all the facts in the Business Recorder Islamabad Saturday 5th September, 2009 and that is the correct version wherein he had not uttered a single contemptuous word regarding this Court, but only mentioned that the administrative powers were not with the Federal Government for the implementation of the judgment of this Court. The learned counsel has also relied upon a press clipping of DAWN and it was stated by respondent No,1 that the Federal Government supports the decision of this Court; that the reply has been filed by respondent No,1 in which he has expressed his utmost respect to the Courts. The Minutes of the meeting of the Standing Committee on Industries and Production held on 4th September, 2009 issued by the National Assembly Secretariat have also been referred by the learned counsel, which does not contain any contemptuous language and is sufficient to rebut the press clippings relied upon by the petitioner and that in the contempt matter the Court has to exercise the parental jurisdiction. Relying upon Syed Masroor Ahsan and others v. Ardeshir Cowasjee and other PLD 1998 Supreme Court 823 learned counsel for respondent No,1 contends that the Courts have always taken a lenient view, but never passed the strict orders against the private persons or the Government functionaries and the Court decisions are respected by heart and not by imposition of penalties or punishments by the Courts. It is contended that on 5-9-2009 a Press Conference was held by respondent No,1 in which it was specifically stated that he had full respect of the Courts and the Federal Government would implement the orders of this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submits that the minutes of the meeting which are being relied upon by respondent No,1 are not relevant and actually respondent had uttered these words while talking to the Media and not in the meeting of the Qaima Committee.
7. Learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3 contends that both the respondents have put themselves at the mercy of the Court, who had no intention to contest the case and their apology may kindly be accepted.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the documents attached herewith it is found that along with the main petition no document was attached to show that the respondents had made contempt to this Court, but subsequently C.M. No,2895 of 2009 was filed for placing on record copies of press clippings.
'Annexures-A,B,C,C/1,C/2 and C/3 with the following prayers: "Under the circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that the documents attached with this petition may please be considered part and parcel of Criminal Original filed by the applicant- which is subject-matter pending before this honourable Court.
'It is further prayed that record of electronic medias such as GEO Television, Aaj Television, City-42 Television, Royal TV, News-I Television and Waqt Television and the record of any of the report/ person relevant to the contemptuousness of the respondents/ contemnors may kindly be directed to submit before this honourable Court in the interest of justice and fairplay so that an appropriate and fair decision is made by this honourable Court."
'The aforesaid annexures contain the following statements alleged to have been made by the respondent:--- 'Annexure-A Daily Express 5-9-2009. {{URDU TEXT}} Annexure-B Daily Express 6-9-2009. {{URDU TEXT}} #TBS 981 #TBE Annexure-C/1 Daily Nawa-i-Waqt 5-9-2009 {{URDU TEXT}} 'Annexure-C/2 Daily Nawa-i-Waqt 4-9-2009 'Annexur-C/3 "The Nation" 5-9-2009.
"In his statement at the meeting of National Assembly's standing committee, Federal Minister for Industries and Production Manzoor Wattoo said the government cannot supply sugar at lower rates. Soon there will be no sugar for utility stores as well, he added. He said the Industries Ministry does not have any policeman nor a Tehsildar or any other authority to control price-hike. High Court will implement its decision by itself, he said. Market dealers said they could not sell the commodity at Rs,40 per Kg. After in the wholesale market after purchasing it at Rs,45 per kg at the ex-mill price, "We can leave the sugar business but cannot bear the loss of Rs,5 to Rs,6 for every kg,"
9. From the perusal of the above, words only the contemptuous statement is that the High Court should itself implement the decision, but the Federal Government has no Tehsildars and Thanedars to implement the decision. The remaining portion is not contemptuous through which it has been shown by respondent No,1 being the Minister that the Federal Government has no control over the areas of the provinces. On the other hand respondent No,1 has denied that he has uttered these words and placed reliance on the Minutes of the Meeting of the Standing Committee dated 4-9- 2009 issued by the National Assembly Secretariat, which contained the statement of respondent No,1, and a perusal thereof reveals that there were no derogatory remarks, but he had uttered the strategy for implementing the decision of this Court and the problems being faced by the Government.
10. Article 204 of the Constitution provides that the Courts which include the Supreme Court and the High Court shall have the power to punish any person who commits any of the acts specified in sub-clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d). Subsection (b) empowers the Court to punish a person, who scandalizes the Court or otherwise does anything, which tends to bring the Court or a Judge of the Court in hatred, ridicule or contempt. However, fair comments about the general working of the Court made in good faith in the public interest and in temperate language and fair comments on the merits of a decision of a Court made after the pendency of the proceedings in a case in good faith and in temperate language without impugning the integrity or impartiality of the judge do not amount to commission of contempt of Court. The jurisdiction of the Court in contempt matter has to be invoked if it is found that there was real prejudice, which could be regarded as substantial interference with the due course of justice. There is a marked distinction between a prepared speech and a press talk; inasmuch as in the former, a person can prepare his speech after serious deliberations and taking into consideration the pros and cons of the matters, whereas in the latter case, he has to face many unexpected questions of which he may have no prior ideas. It is a matter of common knowledge that during the press talks the press reporters skilfully extract statements, which the persons concerned might have no intention to make. D The above distinction is important for the purpose of deciding the question that whether the alleged contemner has acted bona fide or mala fide or with malice. Committal for contempt of Court is a weapon to be used sparingly, and always with reference to the interest of administration of justice.
The august Supreme Court of Pakistan in Syed Mansoor Ahmad case (supra) has held as under:--- "Powers of Court to be used sparingly and only in serious cascs---Court should not be either unduly touchy or over-astute in discovering new varieties of E contempt for "its usefulness depends on the wisdom and restraint with which it is exercised."
11. It is settled law that the press clippings per se are not admissible in evidence and the learned counsel for the petitioner has not placed on record the list of witnesses to prove the said press clippings and the names of the Press Reporters, who had reported such remarks made by the respondents for publication. On the other hand the respondent No,1 has submitted reply to the show-cause notice wherein he has categorically denied the correctness of the statements allegedly made by him. It has been further held in the afore-cited case that the Courts are slow to entertain and to prosecute contempt proceedings, as the cardinal rule in the branch of the contempt power in respect of scurrilous attach against a Judge or the Court is a wise economy of use by the Court of this jurisdiction. Silence and steady devotion by the Judges to duty are the best answers to irresponsible criticism. Additionally, the committal for contempt of Court is a weapon to be used sparingly and always with reference to the interest of the administration of justice. It should be used only from a sense of duty and under the pressure of the public necessity. The object of contempt proceedings is not to afford protection to the Judges personally from imputations to which they may be exposed as individuals, but it is intended to be a protection to the public whose interest would be very much affected if by the act or conduct of any party, the authority of the Court is lowered and sense of confidence which the people may have in the administration of justice by it is weakened.
12. On the other hand the respondents have brought on record the press clippings of Business Recorder Islamabad, 5-9-2009 Annexure 'A', Dawn Islamabad, Annexure `B', Dawn Lahore 6-9-2009 Annexure 'C', Daily Times, Lahore 6-9-2009 Annexure `W. The Nation Lahore 6-9-2009 Annexure `E', Nawa-i-Waqt, Lahore 6-9-2009 Annexure 'F', Jang Rawalpindi 9-9-2009 Annexure `G', Nawa-i-Waqt Rawalpindi 9-9-2009 Annexure 'H', Khabrain Islamabad 9-9-2009 Annexure 'I' and Jinnah, Islamabad Annexure T attached with written reply and perusal thereof reveals that the respondents including the other officials had not made any derogatory remarks, but shown their intention for the implementation of the decision of this Court. Respondent No,1 has denied the news item published on 5-9-2009 by stating that he respects the Courts and the Federal Government will implement the judgment of the High Court. While making a reply to the show-cause notice he has also taken the same stand that he has not uttered these words. He has been regularly appearing before this Court and never shown disrespect to the Courts. Keeping in view all the circumstances we are not inclined to proceed further in the matter by summoning the witnesses and to proceed in the matter after the perusal of the words which were used by the respondent and also we do not G find that the said words can be declared as contemptuous and the respondent can be convicted firstly and secondly the press clippings alone are not sufficient to connect the respondent with the commission of the crime. The rule of criminal jurisprudence is that if two views on the same evidence are plausibly possible, the one favouring the person standing trial should be preferred over the one against him, cannot be pressed into service in contempt proceedings as the same are sui generis in nature partaking of some elements of both civil and criminal proceedings.
13. The result of the above discussion is that we find that respondent No,1 is not H guilty of contempt of Court and show-cause notice issued to him is hereby withdrawn.
14. As far as respondents Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, they have put themselves at the mercy of the Court and the Courts have always taken a lenient view if anybody puts himself at the mercy of the Court. The purpose of law of contempt of Court is not I to punish the people better it is to reprimand the people to be careful in future. This conduct of the Courts further brings respect in the mind of the general public and the notices issued to them are also recalled. This petition is disposed of accordingly.
Contempt notices withdrawn. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.