SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-This is an application for remission of the sentence which was imposed upon the petitioner by this Court upon his conviction on a charge of contempt of Court.
2. In February, 1974 the petitioner was working as a Magistrate in Lahore. At that time the district administration was making arrangements for the holding of Summit Conference in Lahore. In connection with these arrangements the petitioner wanted to demolish the shop of one Iftikhar Ali with the object of widening the passage to Data Darbar. Iftikhar Ali filed a civil suit and obtained a temporary injunction to save his shop from demolition. With the full knowledge of the existence of the said temporary injunction the petitioner demolished the shop. On the motion of Iftikhar Ali a Division Bench of this Court convicted him for contempt and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 or, in default thereof, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month. He went in appeal before the Supreme Court to challenge his conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction but on the question of sentence it observed: "Finally, Mr. Shaukat Ali submitted that if the fine imposed on the appellant was not set aside, he could be dismissed from service. As the appellant had committed contempt, he had made himself liable to punishment for contempt and the consequences of that punish--ment would be no ground whatsoever for allowing the appeal and the plea is really in the nature of a plea for compassion or mercy which should have been advanced before the High Court. It would not be proper for us to grant relief on this ground but it would be open to the appellant to approach the High Court with this plea."
On the basis of the above observations the petitioner has now come to this Court for remission of his sentence.
3. Section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 lays down the punishment for contempt of Court.
The proviso to this section runs as follows: "Provided that, on being satisfied that the accused, whether after defending himself or without offering any defence, has purged himself of the contempt of Court, the Court may discharge the accused or remit his sentence."
The words remit his sentence' as occurring in this proviso do indicate that this Court has the power to grant relief to a contemner even after he has been convicted provided it is satisfied that he has purged himself of the contempt of Court.
4. The petitioner has appeared before us in person. He has tendered an unqualified apology and expressed regrets over what he did. We are satisfied that he is genuinely sorry for disobeying tree injunction of the Civil Court and that he is not likely to repeat this error again. We also take notice of the fact that while convicting him of contempt the Division Bench did not hold that he had acted out of malice. He was convicted more than five years ago and in the intervening period he has undergone considerable mental agony. In the circumstances we consider that he has considerably purged himself of the contempt of Court and remit his sentence of fine.