' ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J.---This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1-7-2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh, whereby the appellant was convicted under section 228, P.P.C. And imposed a fine of Rs, 200 or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal are that on 1-7-2013, the learned Presiding Officer was hearing a civil revision when the appellant interrupted the proceedings and started addressing the court by using inappropriate words in a loudly voice alleging that the court has not decided the petition under sections 22-A/ 22-B, Cr.P.C. Filed by the appellant by watching his interest. The court informed him that after hearing the said revision petition he will be heard but the appellant continued using inappropriate language in the court. Consequently, after the proceedings, he was issued a show cause notice through the Stenographer Mr. Muhammad Masood Ahmad but the appellant refused to accept the same and also declined to file any reply to the show cause notice. He also threatened that he would see to it that how the court continues to work. After that, the appellant escaped from the courtroom. Since the occurrence was witnessed by Messrs N. A. Raza, Muhammad Tariq Gujjar and Sardar Muhammad lqbal Dogar Advocates, therefore, no further evidence was needed and then the court proceeded to convict the appellant as described and mentioned above. Hence, the present appeal before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is apologetic and throws himself at the mercy of the Court that he regrets his conduct and undertakes that this will never be repeated; that the appellant holds the courts at the highest esteem and respect them with the bottom of his heart; that the impugned judgment was passed in a hasty manner without observing the procedure as neither any witness was recorded nor any time was given to the appellant to put his defence; that the appellant being a professional lawyer will suffer badly if the conviction is not set aside; that the appellant has not insulted the Presiding Officer or caused interruption in the judicial proceedings as he simply asked the court in a respectful manner to decide his petition filed under sections 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C. Expeditiously; that no insulting words were ever used as observed by the learned trial court; that tone of the appellant may have caused annoyance to the learned Presiding Officer, which was never aimed at delinquent conduct to the court. Lastly, submits that it is the common practice that the lawyers, with the permission of the court, interfere and ask or inform the court regarding some emergent matters which do not, by any stretch of imagination, can possibly constitute any offence, hence prays for setting aside of the impugned. Judgment.
4. Conversely, the learned Additional Prosecutor-General submits that the appellant was granted time to file reply to the show-cause notice but he opted not to file any reply; that the appellant, on the other hand, challenged the authority of the court, which is not acceptable and hence, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record.
6. The appellant straightaway lays himself at the mercy of this Court and has surrendered himself unconditionally by submitting that any punishment given by this Court will be accepted to him and begs for a lenient view. However, this appears to be a serious matter, in which prestige of the court is involved, therefore, the appeal will be decided on its merits.
7. A lawyer cannot take the advantage of his position and does not enjoy a licence to interrupt the judicial proceedings, whenever he desires. He should be mindful of the fact that prestige of the court is a common object of both Bar and the Bench. In case the authority of the court is challenged, a lawyer will obviously be the immediate victim.
8. After having said that, this Court has noticed that the impugned judgment was passed in a hasty manner without recording the statements of even lawyers, present in the court. No proper time even till rising of A the court was granted to the appellant to present his defence and explain the circumstances as well as the reasons behind his action. It is commonly observed that during the proceedings of a case, lawyers tend to address the clerk or the court while somewhat halting or interrupting the proceedings temporarily on account of some emergency or on anticipation of an immediate response by the court. However, if the court does not permit, the lawyers should wait until the proceedings are over. It is a common experience that some lawyers adopt the high tones while addressing the court, which may cause annoyance to the Presiding Officer, so they should be careful. Even otherwise, it is admitted that proceedings of the case continued but the appellant kept on using the words.
9. Seemingly in the judgments on the subject, it has been recently held in the case of Rab Nawaz v.
The State (2011 SCM R 1485) that provisions of section 228, P.P.C. Are attracted to a case involving insult or interruption during a judicial proceeding but in the instant case, the insulting words are not stated and admittedly no interruption in the proceedings had taken. Similarly, in the case of Fayyaz Hussain v. Tariq Mehmood lqbal Khan [2006 YLR 1442], it is held that seeking adjournments does not constitute an offence under section 228, P.P.C. In the case of Jahangir Akhtar v. The State [2005 M LD 613], word Ziadti' used to inform the court with passion and sentiment is not held as an offence under section 228, P.P.C.
10. As per case reported as Haji Khawar Saleem v. The State [2000 SCM R 1856], procedure under section 480, Cr.P.C. May be followed by the court and in the judgment titled Muhammad Mushtaq v.
The State reported as PLD 2003 SC 19, the court can proceed under sections 228 and 496, P.P.C. Or under section 480 or 482, Cr.P.C. In Agha Siraj Khan Durrani v. The State reported as 2000 PCr.LJ 1329, the complaint can be lodged by the concerned court or its superior court.
11. In my humbly view, in this case the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the appellant as neither the witnesses were recorded nor enough time was granted to the appellant to file reply to the show cause notice and put up his defence. The required procedure was not adopted. Therefore, I am inclined to grant the benefit of doubt to the appellant as the exact action of interruption or insult was not explained as required under section 481(2), Cr.P.C.
12.. In this view of the matter, this appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment dated 1-7-2013 passed by the learned trial court is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge.