These proceedings in contempt arise from the reference dated 16-3-1974 made by the learned Additional Sessons Judge, Multan wherein he reported that Sher Ali Khan, respondent despite knowledge of the order dated .22-6-1973 granting interim bail to Muzaffar Hussain in a case under section 409, P. P. C. Arrested him in that case and as such he committed the contempt of Court.
2. The facts are set out at considerable length in the reference, it is, therefore, not necessary for me to detail them at any length. Briefly, a case under section 409, P. P. C. Was registered against Muzaffar Hussain. He was allowed interim pre-arrest bail on 22-6-1973. The case was under investigation of the respondent. 1n order to secure the arrest of Muzaffar Hussain, Sher Ali Khan respondent summoned Mst. Farida Begum, mother of Muzaffar Hussain to the Police Station, thereafter, Muzaffar Hussain want to the Police Station with 'robkar' to the effect that he had been allowed interim pre-arrest bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. It has been alleged that Muzaffar Hussain, at the time the respondent was about to arrest him, informed the respondent of the order allowing bail passed in his favour by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Despite the `robkar' having been shown to him he did not care for the same and arrested Muzaffar Hussain on 22-6-1973 at 4 or 5 p.m. And as such wilfully flouted the judicial order and also used contemptuous language.
3. Mst. Farida Begum moved an application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan apprising him of the conduct of the respondent and requested for initiating contempt proceedings against him.
4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Multan called upon the respon--dent to explain his position. The respondent filed a reply wherein he denied having arrested Muzaffar Hussain on 22-6- 1973 in the case under section 409, P. P. C. His plea was that he had arrested Muzaffar Hussain on 23-6-1973 in a case under section 380, P. P. C. Since the respondent contested the allegations the learned Additional Sessions Judge required Mst. Farida Begum to substantiate the same. After recording the evidence of five witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was prima facie convinced that the respondent had violated the order dated 22-6-1973. He, therefore, for the reasons given therein referred the matter to this Court for appropriate action: 5.On 26-11-1974 this Court issued notices to the parties. The respon--dent fil6d parawise reply to the reference. Wherein, he refuted the allegations. While admitting the arrest of Muzaffar Hussain he took up a definite stand that he had arrested Muzaffar Hussain on 23-6-1973 in a case under sec--tion 380, P. P. C. He categorically denied having, arrested him on 22-6-1973. It is to be noted that after having taken this plea the respondent in para. No. 7 stated:- "If this Honourable Court deem the case as correct the replying respondent puts himself unconditionally to the mercy of the Court."
6. On 21-0-1982, I found that no notice as required by section 7 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1976 had been given to the respondent. For that, I examined the record. It appeared to me that there were sufficient grounds for believing that Sher Ali Khan respondent had committed contempt of Court and it was necessary in the interest of effective administration of justice to proceed against him. I, therefore, made an order in writing to that affect. I also directed the office to prepare a contempt notice setting forth the substance of the charge against the respondent. The notice was prepared and delivered to the respondent on the same day. Copy of which has been placed on the record marked 'A' by me. I recorded the order setting forth the substance of the charge against the respondent, informed him of the grounds on which he was charged with the contempt of Court and called upon him to show cause why he be not punished.
7. On 2-5-1982, in reply to the show-cause notice the respondent tendered an unconditional apology as under:- "The respondent/petitioner himself unconditionally prays to the mercy of the Honourable Court and tenders his unqualified apology."
The respondent and his learned counsel stated that they would not contest the allegations.
8. Since the tender of unqualified apology amounts to an admission of the allegations and the respondent did not care to contest the substance of the charge and as such the charge has to be accepted as substantially true. There is, thus, no doubt that the respondent is guilty of disobeying and flouting the order dated 22-6-1973 allowing bail to Muzaffar Hussain by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which he was legally bound to obey.
9. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that the apology tendered by the respondent is a complete answer to the show-cause notice and has the affect of purging contemner and consequently, no further action is called for and in any case only a nominal sentence of fine would meet the case. As against this the learned counsel for Mst. Farida Begum has urged that the respondent is a habitual contemner. He has already been convicted under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 in a case reported as Sh. Zahoor Ahmad v. Sher Ali and others 1977 P Cr. L J 852,on an identical charge and as such does not deserve any leniency.
10. I have considered the matter with care in the light of the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the parties.
It is well settled that an unqualified apology cannot ipso facto purge offence. The Contemner cannot claim acquittal as a matter of right on the basis of apology irrespective of its quality and whenever, some leniency is shown, that is, by way of grace and concession. Since the respondent has, now, by tendering unqualified apology virtually accepted the allegations. I propose to assess the quality and consider whether it is a case where the apology can be treated as sufficient amends for the conduct of respondent. After having considered this aspect of the matter in the light of the circumstances of the case my answer is in the negative for-the following reasons :--
(a) The respondent has not tendered unqualified apology at the earliest opportunity. He was summoned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to explain his position. He denied the allegations and contested the same till last. He did not tender apology before the High Court in his para--wise comments to the reference. After having taken the stand that he did not arrest Muzaffar Hussain on 22-6-1973 in a case under section 409, P. P. C. And had arrested him on 23-6- 1.973 in a different case, he tendered the so-called unqualified apology in these terms;-- "If this Honourable Court deems the case correct the replying respondent put himself unconditionally to the mercy of this Honourable Court."
He further stated therein :- "The replying respondent has served the Police department and is now retired. Throughout his service he was always respectful to the courts. However, the replying respondent once again puts himself uncondition--ally to the mercy of this Honourable Court."
I am afraid the parawise reply to the reference submitted by the respondent in this Court cannot be recognised as an unqualified apology. For the first time he tendered unqualified apology before this Court on 2-5-1982 i. e. After about 7 years from the date when he was summoned by the learned Additional Sessions Judge to explain his position:
(b) That the apology does not appear to be sincere. The respondent appeared before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Instead of admitting his fault he took up a false plea that he had arrested Muzaffar Hussain on 23-6-1973 in a case under section 380, P. P. C. He contested the allegations tooth and nail and never realized his high handedness. Before the High Court he initially took up the same false plea and in the alternative expressed the so-called unconditional apology as detailed above. It was only after the notice to show cause why he should not be punished that he made a retreat from his original stand and tendered unqualified apology which to my mind is a mere subterfuge to avoid severe punishment.
(c) It appears that he has been disrespectful to the judicial order more than once. The assertion, of the learned counsel for the applicant that the respondent has already been convicted under the Contempt of Court Act for violating the bail order passed by the High Court (1977 P Cr. L J 852) has not been controverted by the respondent or his learned counsel. Therefore, the claim of the respondent in his parawise reply that throughout his service he has been respectful to the Courts stands falsified. It appears that for the reasons, best known to him he had started flouting the judicial orders. .
For all these reasons I am of the view that unqualified apology tendered by him on 2-5-1982 does not purge the offence and does not constitute sufficient amends for his conduct.
11. I find that the contemner was Inspector of Police. He is a man of matured mind. He fully knew what he was doing by flouting a judicial order which he was bound to obey. His duty was to see that the law was respected and enforced. By virtue of his office he was a (WL-) but, he, instead of obey--ing. a legal order passed by a competent Court had shown utter of disregard for the same and as such it is a case of naked contempt of Court. In the interest of effective administration of justice I am constrained to take very serious view of the matter.
12. For what bas been stated above I hold Sher Ali Khan guilty of contempt of Court punishable under section 4 of its Contempt of Court Act, 1976. Since he has not contested the charge and thrown himself at the mercy of the Court, I, treating the apology as a mitigating circumstance refrain from awarding the maximum punishment. He is, however, sentenced to simple imprisonment for three (3) months and a fine of Rs. 4,000 (Rupees Four Thousand), in default no sentence is imposed. The list of the property furnished by him shown that he owns sufficient property. The fine, if not paid by him within one month, be recovered through attachment and auction of his property as an arrears of land revenue.