' SHAHID HAMEED DAR, J.---The petitioner, Sajid Rafique by filing this petition under Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 has sought initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents, Ghulam Dastgir Khan, Station House Officer, Police Station Defence, Lahore, Tariq Mehmood ASI, Inchkrge Police Post, Muhammad Altaf constable, Riaz Ahmad constable, Police Post Super Town, P.S. Defence, Lahore, for deliberately and intentionally disobeying the order of this court passed on 26.1.2006 in Crl . Misc . No .75/H-2006 .
2. Precisely, the facts giving rise to the instant petition are that on an application under section 491, Cr.P.C. (Cri.Misc.No.75/H of 2006) moved by the petitioner, this court deputed a bailiff to recover Mian Khalid Rafique from the illegal and improper custody of respondents Nos.1 and 2; he raided the police station, but failed to recover the alleged detenu; respondents Nos.1 and 2 appeared before this court on 26.1.2006 and submitted that they were not aware of the whereabouts of the detenu; besides, respondent No.2 took special oath on Holy Qur'an and said that he neither arrested the alleged detenu nor he knew anything about him, whereon this court passed the following order:- "Both the parties have been heard. The alleged detenu was not found at the place mentioned in this petition at the time of raid by Bailiff; who was alleged to have been illegally confined by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 present in the court has stated on special oath of Holy Quran that he absolute does not know about whereabouts of Khalid detenu nor he is in his custody and he had never arrested him. In this view of the matter learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this petition any more in order to avail the alternate remedy after having knowledge of whereabouts of the alleged detenu, which is disposed of accordingly. However, the petitioner can avail alternate remedy available to him under the law."
' The petitioner again approached this court through W.P.No.709/2006, which was fixed for 30.1.2006 for the recovery of the said detenu. In the meanwhile, it transpired that one Mazhar Ali had filed a habeas corpus petition on 27.1.2006 for recovery of his brother Muhammad Alam, wherein learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore deputed a bailiff, who raided the Police Post Super Town, within the area of Police Station Defence, Lahore, searched it thoroughly, but he could not recover the detenu, whereafter, he together with the petitioner (therein) and Muhammad Nawaz 7175/C raided a private torture cell, situated in haveli of one Rafaqat Ali Bhatti at Park View Society, near New Airport Lahore and recovered Muhammad Alam, the alleged detenu and produced him before the said court. The bailiff reported that at the time of the raid, he also found three other persons, Mian Khalid Rafique (detenu), Sohail Akhtar and Zahoor Ahmad confined in the said torture cell.
' On knowing about the confinement of Mian Khalid Rafique (detenu) in the torture cell of the respondents, the petitioner approached this court through the instant petition contending therein that respondents Nos.1 and 2 had deliberately and wilfully defied the orders of this court and purposely told a lie so as to concealing true facts of the case and to save their own skin, which amounted to committing contempt of the court by them. Accordingly, respondents Nos.1 and 2 were issued the notices on 30.1.2006 with the direction to submit reply within seven days. Learned State counsel was appointed the prosecutor of this case. The respondent-contemnors submitted their replies, whereafter learned prosecutor was directed to submit list of the witnesses containing gist of the evidence to be adduced.
' Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted on 10.3.2006 that parties had patched up the dispute and petitioner wished to withdraw this petition. This request was turned down by this court with the observation that contempt of court was necessarily an issue between the court and the contemnor. The respondents were charge-sheeted on 14.4.2006 in answer to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, Two prosecution witnesses, Muhammad Iqbal, the bailiff of sessions court, Lahore (P.W.1) and Khalid Rafique (P.W.2) were examined on 26.5.2006. It is manifest from the record that the other witnesses as mentioned in the list submitted by the prosecutor, were summoned repeatedly but they did not enter appearance. With this, the learned prosecutor also kept himself away from the court. After elongated proceedings, spanning over years, learned counsel for the respondents submitted on 11.5..2015 that the respondent-contemnors felt ashamed of, what had done and they intended to tender unqualified apology in this regard. The petitioner, who had not appeared for a long time, was issued a notice and he turned up on 15.5.2015 and then on 22.5.2015 along with his learned counsel Rai Nadeem Kharal, advocate. The petitioner tendered his sworn affidavit (Mark 'A') to the effect that he had compromised the issue and forgiven the respondents, hence, he would not object to their exoneration by the court. The alleged contemnors also showed penitence and submitted their sworn affidavits (Mark 'B' and Mark 'C') with the contention that they sought an unconditional apology and they left them at the mercy of this court.
3. It was at this stage when learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents joined together in submitting that the respondent contemnors, who looked repentant, might be forgiven and contempt proceedings be dropped in their favour.
4. I have considered the submissions made by the respondent contemnors and their learned counsel with care and found that they had shown correct attitude by now. They have thrown themselves at the mercy of this court so much that they tendered yet another sworn affidavit each (Mark 'D' and Mark 'E') today with the same remorseful feelings, as expressed by them in their earlier affidavits (Mark 'B' and Mark 'C'), which they tendered on 22.5.2015. They by their demeanour felt repentant and apologetically gave assurance that they would remain careful in future and show complete obedience to the court orders and decorum. They have offered unqualified apology one after the other in a simple and pure way.
5. The alleged contemnors being police officials are the custodian of law and through whom the law is to be enforced. They were not expected to act in a such like manner as they did. It was a part of their duty, as members of the disciplined force, to respect the law and feel abided by the decorum of the court. They could not, however live up to the said yardstick and made a false statement, as not to have illegally confined the detenu, Khalid Rafique. It has to be remembered that the respondents made the said misstatement in year 2006 and they have been facing the contempt proceedings since then. Tariq Mehmood ASI (respondent No.2) has submitted that he has been dismissed from the service many a years back and he had already paid a heavy price of his follies. Ghulam Dastgir Khan SHO (respondent No.1), who still served the police department, said that his promotion had become to a standstill since 2006 and he always thought that he had committed sheer stupidity by not making a fair statement about the confinement of the alleged detenu. Both the respondents unanimously said that they had learnt the lesson of their life, not to ever misstate before the court.
6. I was not inclined to accept the apology but for the fact that the respondent contemnors had realized that no one was above law irrespective of his status and that even the time factor could not defeat the due process of the law. They were really ashamed of what that did. They felt sorry and penitent. They bowed their heads in shame with drooped shoulders. Their unconditional apology' was genuine and sincere. It has been observed by the apex court in the case of Fakhre Alain reported as PLD 1973 SC 525 that the contemnor having thrown himself unconditionally at the mercy of the court, the contempt stood purged.
7. Mere fact that court had earlier declined to accede to request of the respondents for seeking forgiveness cannot take us away from giving second thought to their incumbent entreatment for unconditional apology. I feel that grace lies in forgiving and not in being harsh. The refusal by the court to show mercy to the conternnor may go against the Islamic Law of Jurisprudence, which underlines:- "To him who repents after his transgression and make amends, mercy will be shown and of the Islamic rule of administration of justice i.e. Adal Bil Ehsaan."
8. For the foregoing reasons, the instant proceedings are wound up, the respondent contemnors' request for unconditional apology is acceded to and they are discharged from the contempt notice issued on 30.1.2006.
9. Disposed of accordingly.