1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This appeal is from an order of a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, convicting the appellant for contempt of Court and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for two months.
2. It appears that upon an application under section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code, made before the High Court by one Ghulam Nabi, the Court by its order dated 9-2-1968, directed the recovery and production of the detenus through a Bailiff. The allegations contained in the application were that the appellant had detained the wife and children of the said Ghulam Nabi in order to compel him to work in the fields of the appellant. In pursuance of this direction the Bailiff having requisitioned police help went along with a Sub-Inspec--tor of Police and the petitioner, to the residence of the appellant and searched his house but failed to find the detenus.
3. On inquiry the Bailiff was told by the appellant that the latter had passed on the detenus to his brother in Sialkot District. The appellant, however, accepted the notice issued by the High Court and gave an undertaking that he would arrange to produce the detenus before the High Court on the date fixed, i.e., 22-2-1968. The appellant failed to produce the detenus as promised by him, and was consequently directed by the High Court to show cause why he should not be committed for contempt of Court. In response to this show--cause notice the appellant appeared before the Court and denied that he had ever kept the detenus in detention or given any undertaking to produce them in Court as alleged. The Court recorded the statements of the appellant, the Bailiff and the said Sub-Inspector of Police, and having examined them came to the conclusion that the statements made by the Bailiff were fully corroborated by the said Sub-Inspector of Police.
4. The Court, accordingly, found the appellant guilty of con--tempt of the High Court and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned already.
5. It has been contended before us that the appellant has not committed contempt of Court as alleged inasmuch as it has neither been proved that the detenus are alive nor that they were detained by him.
6. So far as the existence of the detenus is concerned, suffice it to mention that in his application under section 491, Cr. P. C. Ghulam Nabi not only categorically asserted the existence of the detenus but also gave their description in full. These statements were never disputed by the appellant in his affidavit-in---opposition.
7. As regards the detention by the appellant of the said detenus the- High Court has relied upon the statements of the Bailiff and the Sub-Inspector of Police. In doing so the High Court has acted within its jurisdiction. It is a question of. Apprecia--tion of evidence by the High Court, arid' nod fault can be- found with the Court if it arrived at, the findings that the appellant detained the detenus and disobeyed the Court's order, in spite of his assurance to produce the detenus before the Court.
8. The High -Court's findings find support from the fact that the relevant statements of the Bailiff and the Sub-Inspector of Police were not challenged by the appellant in cross-examination. We may add that the appellant by his false assurance deliberately prevented the authorities concerned from continuing to search for the detenus in order to produce them before the High Court in compliance with the Court's order.
9. In the facts and circumstances of this case we do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court and the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.