JUDGMENT SH. AHMAD FAROOQ, Through the instant appeal, the appellants have assailed the order dated 11-10-2001, whereby the learned Single Judge-in Chamber while convicting the appellants under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, read with Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has sentenced them to seven (7) days simple imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs.3000 each, and in default of payment thereof, they were ordered to undergo three days' further imprisonment.
2. Precisely, the facts essential for adjudicating the instant appeal are that Muhammad Shafi/respondent No.1 who was running an are Machine' with electricity connection bearing Account No.243-0068245, received an electricity bill amounting to Rs.13200, which was to he paid by 4-9-2001 but the WAPDA Team comprising of the present appellants and others disconnected his electricity supply on 30-8-2001, in addition to getting a case registered against him, vide F.I.R.
No. 392 of 2001, under sections 506/186, P.P.C. Registered in Police Station, Aroop, Gujranwala. After having failed to get his electricity connection restored, Muhammad Shafi/present respondent N9.1 filed Writ Petition No. 16700 of 2001, wherein the learned Single Judge-in-Chamber, vide order dated 17-9-2001, directed the respondents/present appellants to restore the electricity connection immediately and positively by 12-00 noon tomorrow i.e. 18-9-2001, under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court. WAPDA Authorities did not comply with the order dated 17-9-2001, whereupon, Muhammad Shafi/present respondent No.1 filed Cr. Org. No.917-W/2001, under sections 3/4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, read with Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The learned Single Judge while holding the respondents/present appellants guilty of the contempt of Court passed the impugned order. Hence, the instant criminal appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge, dated .17-9-2001 was not conveyed to the appellants by Mr. Ghulam Rasool, Advocate, who had appeared on behalf of WAPDA in the writ petition. He contended that the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 17-9-2001 was received by appellant No. 1 /Syed Habib Shah, SDO through mail on 28- 9-2001, whereupon, he immediately restored the electricity connection of the premises of respondent No. 1 . The learned counsel claimed that Mr. Ghulam Rasool, Advocate appeared on behalf of WAPDA, on 13-9-2001 as well as on 17-9-2001, without any power of attorney. He further claimed that Mr. Noman Rehman's Sheikh, Advocate, who was appointed as a Local Commissioner by the learned Single Judge for verification of the restoration of the electricity connection, vide order dated 9-10-2001, admitted in his report that the electricity connection was already restored.
He argued that the learned Single Judge gave undue importance to the deposition of Mst. Halima, which she made before the Local Commissioner, wherein she mentioned that the electricity was restored a little prior to the visit of the Local Commissioner. The learned counsel next contended that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is against facts and based on pre- suppositions. He argued that there was no motive/reason for the appellants to disobey the order of this Court. The learned counsel asserted that the appellants faithfully complied with the order of the Court immediately on its receipt on 28-9-2010. Lastly, he maintained that the impugned order dated 11-10-2001 is not sustainable under the law.
4. Conversely, the learned Additional Prosecutor General, Punjab opposed the instant appeal, on the plea that the present appellants did not comply with the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 17-9-2001 and the same stands fully proved from the report of the Local Commissioner. He further submitted that the present appellants were rightly convicted under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 read with Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and an extremely lenient view has been taken while awarding the sentence of seven (7) days imprisonment along with fine of Rs.3000 to each of the appellants.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused.
6. A perusal of the record has revealed that the appellants initially filed I.C.A. No.851 of 2001, which was allowed to be converted into a criminal appeal, vide order of this Court dated 16-10-2001, and the same was subsequently registered as Criminal Appeal No.2078 of 2001. During the proceedings of the contempt petition, the present appellants took a defence that they had restored the electricity supply on 28-9-2001. This stance of the appellants was controverted by Muhammad Shafi/ present respondent No.1, by stating that the electricity connection was still not restored, ,whereupon the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 9-10-2001, appointed Mr. Noman Rehman's Sheikh, Advocate as a Local Commissioner, with a direction to visit the site and check whether the electricity has been restored or not. The Local Commissioner submitted his report, wherein he mentioned that the electricity connection had been restored. However, the Local Commissioner clarified that the meter was not running as the occupants were not using the electricity supply, due to the apprehension of change in the reading of the meter. The Local Commissioner was informed by one Mst. Halima Bibi, who lived in the neighbourhood, that the electricity has just been restored.
The Local Commissioner also observed fresh marks of screw driver on the meter as well as found small pieces of aluminum were at the spot, in addition to the presence of some WAPDA officials along with a "Hawaldar". The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the present appellants had not restored the electricity connection on 28-9-2001 and even thereafter. The learned Single Judge-in-Chamber also rightly did not believe that the order dated 17-9-2001 was not conveyed to the SDO concerned M time. The learned Single Judge was fully convinced that the electricity supply was restored by the officials of WAPDA few minutes prior to the arrival of the Local Commissioner. These findings of the learned Single Judge are based on cogent reasoning and do not call for any interference by this Court. The learned Single Judge has rightly convicted the present appellants under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 read with Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The tendency of flouting the orders of the superior Courts is increasing day by day, and it is high time to take stern action to curb such practice. The public functionaries are duty bound to comply with the orders of the courts in letter and spirit and within the timeframe given. In the present case, the conduct of the appellants, from the very beginning of the proceedings in the writ petition out of which the contempt petition had arisen, remained very contumacious. The appellants despite being informed by their learned counsel/Mr. Ghulam Rasool, Advocate, did not appear in this Court whereupon their presence had to be procured through their bailable warrants of A arrest. The appellants had failed to bring on record any credible evidence to show that they had restored the electricity connection on 28-9-2001.
Though in view of their contumacious conduct the appellants deserved to be awarded exemplary punishment, yet the learned Single Judge took a lenient view of the matter and awarded them a short sentence of only seven days imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.3000 each. In such circumstances, there is no ground warranting interference in the impugned order, which is accordingly, upheld and the sentence awarded to the appellants is maintained. Resultantly, the instant appeal is dismissed.