' ABDUL MAIER) MALLICK, J.-These contempt proceedings arise out of the publication of a news item in the 'Daily Tameer Rawalpindi', dated 14th October, 1979. It relates to the appointment of Mr. Justice Raja Muhammad Khurshid Khan (the present Acting Chief Justice) as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, during the absence of Chief Justice (Rtd.) Chaudhry Rahim Dad Khan, the then Chief Justice, who proceeded on leave in order to perform Haj. The news in question was supposed to cover important details of oath taking ceremony, held at Mirpur. But in addition to the necessary details of oath ceremony, it contained contumacious matter. Thus it gave rise to gross contempt of the Court. The offending news is reproduced as under :- -{{BLUR PAGE}} 61 ,JLIS ji..,j15. ',441,1:11 S 4 ji fogy crt., J.P4 a)" 1;6 LeL*t 641`, Jr"
041 UZI"? I'd o': '- ,t,iss aY4Sr y) ai_gr g y ce.L.I.
44. rugJI; tjte.1 c.T 2_ 66.
66. tA.. Alf.); JJ.,0 .4.44r Ajr L Lrt-ts L awsr - W 6-" c 4:0 otlj c1.691.1 1,J;IS 1,11 V..11%... 1/4-4 4 at.. r4S1 MA) J.18.* 4";;5'4141 6 06" N {{BLUR PAGE}} Low L. Ji .1. z.o."01.1.0 aJAhlt. L (1-2):#.
1.)1 j1; 311 er-J .91 Pk) 6.04/2:4' 061 ./1"/ fte*./ a is-- Jit 41. Z asr S Lti 4:11..4"" Lt-.4 Lei - er- J*4. C.2.YR L.t1 J.)" t 1 lc L;-, J4024 vs or) L ;131- '7-111'r *44 Z S 4 L5 1 d 7;1'44 5 LAP C,/' 0'1 dss Cf.) -61, L `241,C IA Lttil ./<4 t, U91 Ji 4a. c-rt4. '"kg: j I)1- wf I871 I, _:1 0.1 0.1 2_ j1j,o tjitt _6 Lit. vt41," jil .L.Tsr crl ir .5)4 u.Lt eMs 5 't".L,Sr 131. It>) (s.)-4.n. )J1- vt-t. 111141(1 J1,4- '2-4').,5- 5 0.4T a.,q1 L ux.Ln. Lsiou Lt..Ot t.,1 er_ (;)).).; U 0'1 2- '1-..4.,<". 14'3 >S LC..71 (-11> r41-314 2- .01 Al ji) Lsi -Ltr. - aY.IA 4-tu_t-cr Ld1/4-4- 06: as ,e,t-t. Le> ,-31%-4,- Z. Lrl tserl ist ja.11/ - l2L) J.1.0 4.44i fh.It.Cr Ail' .0-- rit1 e to..4v13 a AS.
4.:...*.43> j; aLL. z (s;LA t.t.Yx. )31 uz.; VII 361.:T Lt. 0.1 t,1 1;1 )I; ,Sr jil 11.431.1:, 11.
0.1.
J1j,0 00.3.0;4.14 cs:Wki 45.1i 6Ci. I (.1;')J 0.1 tsc (14.0,Y, jt; eu JA s..11",0 1:1-5r -f!;14 - - LAY fat.
14.Atij J *J" jir L )1' Le`taT' rtlj 4:41 '510711 5 01 .`ki"A L L `19.0r (<4.)t--...^kter J12-4. ,Av-suf.7 - uze..- 4,t). ts4.- 44')f 2.,) rla it Z.51 S {{BLUR PAGE}}rtJ es. Z.
1983 STATE V. G. M. MUFTI SC (A & K) 173 (Abdul Majeed MaHick, J)
4:.-11 s.. IS 123 Jr jlAil J....o. Um _yr Lrl u.t. NLL .r1
(sic) 2-, )ii- jtz L*-11 {{BLUR PAGE}}
2. On 16th October, 1979, the Registrar placed a copy of the 'Daily Tameer', dated 14th October, before the Court and invited its attention to the offending news. As, the offending news was shown as Press release, with date line at Muzaffarabad, in order to fix the liability it was deemed expedient to hold preliminary inquiry by recording statement of Secretary Information. Consequently, statements of Raja Muhammad Niaz Khan, Secretary Information, Abdul Hamid Shaheen, Deputy Director Information, and Abdul Qayyum, Information Officer, were recorded. On perusal of the offending news and material collected in preliminary inquiry, contempt notices were issued to Mr. G. M. Mufti, a Local Reporter of the Paper at Muzaffarabad, Mr. Hamid Mufti, Desk man, Mr. Bashir-- ul-Islam Usmani, Editor and Publisher, and Malik Abdul Aziz Printer of the 'Daily Tameer'.
3. In their written objections, Mr. G. M. Mufti and Mr. Hamid Mufti expressed highest respect and regard for the Court and repudiated the attribution. Likewise, Mr. Bashir-ul-Islam Usmani and Malik Abdul Aziz denied the allegation and showed complete lack of knowledge with respect to publication of the offending news. Nevertheless, they offered profound and sincere unconditional apology. They placed themselves at the mercy of the Court. Mr. Usmani's statement was recorded on 12th January. He deposed that Mr. G. M. Mufti, Mr. Hamid Mufti and Malik Abdul Aziz bad no hand in the publication of the offending news. The offending news was prepared and published by Aziz- ul-Beher, a staff member working in the office, who collected the offending news from his contacts with the Kashmiri Political Circle at Rawalpindi and annexed it with the Press release. Mr. Usmani undertook to produce Aziz-ul-Beher, the contemner, in the Court but failed to do so.
4. In view of the statement of Mr. Usma ni the proceedings were adjourned to secure attendance of Aziz-ul-Beher. Mr. Usmani intimated the Court that the contemner had gone to Karachi to see his relatives, who had come to Pakistan from Saudi Arabia and the moment he was back to Rawalpindi he would be produced in the Court. But later on it was reported that Aziz-ul-Beher has left for Saudi Arabia. By the time the aforesaid report was received, Mr. Justice Malik Muhammad Aslam Khan, Ad hoc Judge of the Court, retired on attaining his superannuation. Some months thereafter, the then Chief Justice also retired as such. The Court was thus left incomplete for a pretty long time. On completion of the Court, the learned counsel for the parties, sought few adjournments on one or the other pretext and ultimately concluded their arguments on 8th instant.
This is how considerable delay has occurred in completion of the proceedings.
5. The offending news in tailored is a motivated fashion in order to tarnish the pious, independent and impartial character of the Court, presided over by the learned Acting Chief Justice. It reflects a serious charge of the integrity and unbiased character of the Court in dispensation of justion in order to diminish faith and trust of the people reposed id the highest apex of the judiciary of the State. Judiciary deserves respect and protection from vile attacks not: because it is an essential organ of Government but because of the nobility and sacredness of the task assigned to it. Being a fountain of justice Courts deserve due respect and reverence. For any lack of faith and confidence in the impartial and honest functioning of the Courts obviously results in chaos and anarchy. It is in this view of the matter that a heavy responsibility is cast upon all of us to solicit and to uphold solemnly the decorum and respect of the Courts. The individual Judge deserves respect and reverence because of the seat he occupies and the forum he presides over. The object of contempt proceedings, therefore, is not only to vindicate the honour of individual Judge, but that of the Court.
6. The contempt in question is one of the grossest but it stand vindicated as Mr. Usmani, Editor and Publisher, and Malik Abdul Aziz, Printer of the Newspaper, volunteered to offer their sincere and unqualified apology. They are repentant for what has happened and place themselves at the mercy of the Court. We feel satisfied that the attitude and conduce of the contemners are expressions of their realisation of the mistake. Mr. G. M. Mufti and Mr. Hamid Mufti are not found connected with the publication of the contumacious matter. Their non-involvement is supported by the statement of Mr. Usmani. At present the main liability of contempt has been shifted to Aziz- ul-Beher. The action against him shall, therefore, continue. A warrant of arrest shall issue against him.
Therefore, we are persuaded to discharge the rule against Mr. Bashir-ul-k Islam Usmani, Malik Abdul Aziz, Mr. G. M. Mufti and Mr. Hamid Mufti.
7. Mr. G. M. Mufti, through an application dated 4-6-1980, invited attention of the Court to a news published in Pakistan Times, Rawalpindi dated 18th October, 1979, at page 5 column 4, under date line Muzaffarabad through P. P. I., containing the news of issuance of contempt notice. He further prayed for summoning Mr. Waheed Chiragh, representative P. P. I. In Muzaffarabad, Mr. Abdul Hamid Shaheen, Deputy Director, and Abdul Qayyum, Information Officer, alongwith their personal files for cross-examination. It was then ordered that application at that stage was premature ; as such necessary order would be passed at the proper time.
8. We have considered the application and the contents of the relevant news published in 'Daily The Pakistan Times' Rawalpindi Edition, dated 18th October, 1979. We propose to pass separate order in respect of that matter. Therefore, it is unnecessary to go in details of the controversy. The second part of the prayer relates to recalling of Mr. Abdul Hamid Shaheen and Abdul Qayyum and to summon Mr. Wahid Chiragh for cross-examination by Mr. G. M. Mufti. In or opinion the request is totally unwarranted, as we have already decided to discharge the rule against Mr. G. M. Mufti and others, therefore, to recall the witnesses for cross-examination, would not serve any useful purpose.
Of course, if the statements are found detrimental to the interest of Mr. Mufti he is free to have recourse to legal remedy.