1. The facts leading up to these proceedings in contempt in brief are that Mst. Anwar the detenue in Criminal Misc. No. 461-H/81 (hereinafter called the prosecutrix) was married to Allah Ditta in exchange of the marriage of the sister of Allah D-itta with Manzoor brother of the detenue. The prosecutrix's relations with her husband .Got strained. She left the house of her husband and came to the house of her brother Manzoor. She was, however., turned out by his brother at the instance of his wife and as such the detenue started living in the house of Ata Muhammad a closefriend of her father. She instituted a suit for the dissolution of her marrriage. On the other hand on 2nd July, 1981 Manzoor the brother of the prosecutrix got an FIR No. 143 under section 11 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 registered at Police Station Harrappa against Ahmad and 3 others. Ch. Nazir Ahmad ASI Police Station Harrappa who was investigating the case recovered her from the house of Ata Muhammad situated in Chak No. 400-GB. The sad aspect of the case, as alleged by the detenue is that Nazir Ahmad ASI, in order to get a positive report of the commission of rape, so as to use the same against Ahmad and others, himself committed sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and thereafter produced her before the Medical Officer for examination. The ASI detained her with him for about 9 days and then produced her on 28th July, 1981 before Syed Maqsood -Hussain Shah, Magistrate Sahiwal for getting her statement recorded under section 164, Cr. P.. C. The learned Magistrate recorded her statement wherein she belied the allegations of her abduction by Ahmad and others as levelled by her brother in case FIR No. 1.43/81.
2. She desired to be sent to Chak No. 400/GB wherefrom she had been recovered by the police. The Magistrate deputed Nazir Ahmad ASI to take her to the chak and leave her there. The ASI instead of obeying the order of the Court took her to the house of Sadar Shah Qureshi where she was subjected to zina-bil-jabr for 10 days.
2. Ata Muhammad then moved Criminal Misc. No. 461/H/81 for the recovery of the prosecutrix Mst.
3. Anwar from the illegal confinement of Nazir Ahmad ASI, On 9th August, 1981 I directed the ASI to produce the lady who was given in his protection by the Magistrate. As it was a very serious matter I called upon the ASl to show cause why action against him for disobeying the order passed by the Magistrate be not taken. Thereupon the A.S.I. Undertook to produce her. He accordingly produced her on 22nd August, 1981, 1 recorded her statement wherein she stated that she was living with her mother and was no wrongfully detained by any one. She wanted to go with her mother. She was told that she was free to go wherever she likes. As for Nazir Ahmad A. S. I. I was of the view that he had failed to discharge his duties as required by law.
3. It so happened that on 1st September, 1981, i.e. After 8 days of her statement before this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 461/H/81, the detenue moved Criminal Misc. No. 720-M-81 supported by an affidavit wherein she disclosed the atrocities perpetrated upon her by Nazir Ahmad ASI and others in order to compel her to make a false favourable statement before the High Court on 22nd August, 1981 in Criminal Misc. No. 461--H/81. She stated that she was ravished by the A.S.I. And others and com--pelled to make a tutored statement. She requested for appropriate action against the ASI and others.
4. On 2nd September, 1981 Mr. Bashir A. Mujahid; learned counsel for the detenue in Criminal Misc. No. 720/H/81 stated that the SHO Police Station A-Division Sahiwal despite the information that Nazir Ahmad A.S.I. And others had committed rape upon the detenue had refused to register the case.
5. The S.H.O. Was; therefore, directed to appear in person.
6. On 15th September, 1981 Criminal Misc. No. 720/H/81 was placed before my learned brother Rustam S. Sidhwa, J. On whose direction, Sharif Hussain ASI recorded the statement of Mst. Anwar detenue in duplicate one copy of which was retained by the said ASI and the other was placed on the file of the case (marked `D' by me). My learned brother directed Sharif Hussain ASI to see that the report was recorded in the daily diary. It was further ordered that "the SHO Police Station A-Division, Sahiwal shall ensure that the said FIR is duly recorded".
4. On 8th December, 1981 I directed the S.H.O. Police Station --A- Division, Sahiwal and the S. H.O.
7. Police Station Harrappa to appear on 20th December, 1981 and produce the copy of the FIR if registered in compliance with the order dated 16th September, 1981 of the High Court in Criminal Misc. No. 720-H/8l.
8. On 20th December, 1981 Aziz-ur-Rehman S.H.O. A-Division, Sahiwal stated that Sharif Hussain had recorded the statement in accordance with the direction given by the High Court and thereafter, he sent the same to the SHO Harrappa. Abbas Haider S.H.O. Police Station Harrappa stated that the statement of Mst. Anwar recorded by Sharif Hussain was received in the Police Station but Rana Muhammad Akram the then SHOdid not register the case and entered a rupt in the rozenanicha. A suo motu notice was issued to Rana Muhammad Akram to show cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him. On 24th March, 1982 Rana Muhammad Akram submitted the reply. I directed the S.H.O. Police Station Harrappa to produce rozenamcha wherein rupt had been entered by Rana Muhammad Akiam, on 29th March, 1982. Abbas Haider S.I. Produced copy of the rupt entered in the rozenamcha by Rana Muhammad Akram SHO (marked A by me). It transpires from the rupt that Rana 1 Muhammad Akram had received the order of the High Court alongwith the statement of the detenue recorded by Sharif Hussain ASI. But he, for the reasons recorded in his rupt declared the case false and Nazir Ahmad ASI innocent and as such virtually refused to record the F. I. R.
9. S. On 21st April, 1982 I found that no notice as required by section 7 of the Contempt of Court 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 Rana Muhammad Akram had committed contempt of Court and it was necessary in the interest of effective administration of justice to proceed against him; I recorded the order to that effect setting forth the substance of the charge against the respondent, a notice containing the substance of the charge was also delivered to him, copy of which has been placed on the record (marked 'B'). He was informed of the grounds on which he was charged with the contempt of Court. He was called upon to show cause why he should not be punished. The respondent filed a reply to the show-cause notice which has been marked `C' by me, wherein he admitted that on 17th September, 1981 he had received an order of the High Court through PDSP alongwith the statement of Mst. Anwar recorded by Sharif Hussain ASI., He, how-- ever, took the plea that he misconstrued the Police Rules (24-4) as he personally knew that the case put up by Mst. Anwar was false on the face of it. Therefore, he did not register the F.I.R. In paras. Nos. 2 and 3 p, he has stated as follows ---It is submitted that the answering-respondent has the profoundest regards and respects for this Honourable Court, He has not even the remotest idea of flouting the authority of the Honourable High Court. It was only misconstruction of a provision of Police Rule Before recording this report the answering-respondent has consult his senior who was S.D.P.O. Who too concurred with his construction that the answering-respondent could follow the Police Rules. The answering- respondent could not even think of flouting the direction of this Honourable Court. However, since this was a misconstruction apparent on the face of the record, therefore, the answering- respondent places himself under the mercy of this Honourable Court an expresses unqualified regrets and prays for the grant of apology. Since this omission to act in accordance with the dictates of the Honourable Court hasemanated from misunderstanding and misconstruing the provision of Police Rules, therefore, there was no impunity or intentional defiance to the authority of the Honourable High Court. The answering-respondent prays for the grant of unqualified pardon and undertakes to be careful in future. He also regrets from the core of his heart for this omission.-- - On 21st April, 1982 the respondent stated that he does not want to contest the notice and tenders unqualified apology.
6. 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, as such the charge has to be accepted as substantially true There is, thus, no doubt that the respondent is guilty of flouting and disobeying the order of this Court which he was legally bound to honour Despite his knowledge that the High Court had ordered the F.I.R. To be recorded and the matter be investigated he simply entered a rupt in the rozenamcha that it was a false case. It is remarkable that he did not enter the statement of Mst. Anwar as a whole in the rozenamcha and immediately on the receipt of the statement and the order of the High Court, declared the case to be false and exonerated the A.S.I.
10. Without first having registered or investigated the case as directed by the High Court.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in view of the fact that the respondent has submitted an unqualified apology at the earliest opportunity and has not contested the charge, the notice shall be discharged. The learned Assistant Advocate-General has, however, sub--mitted that a lenient view of the matter may be taken.
7. I have considered the matter in the light of the circumstances and arguments presented before me. It is well settled that unqualified apology cannot ipso facto purge the offence. The contemner cannot claim acquittal as a matter of right and whenever, a leniency is shown that is by way of grace and concession. The respondent has by tendering unqualified apology virtually accepted the commission of contempt of Court by him. I, therefore, proceed to consider whether it is a case where the apology may be treated as sufficient amends and the notice be recalled. I find that Mst.
12. Anwar the detenue had levelled serious allegations against Nazir Ahmad ASI in her statement recorded by Sharif Hussain A.S.I. As well as in her petition Criminal Misc. No. 720-H/81 it has been alleged by her
(1) That during the investigation of the case F.I.R. No. 143 against Ahmad and others pertaining to her alleged abduction, the ASI recovered her from the house of Ata Muhammad where medical examination she was voluntarily living. Thereafter, the ASI with intent to obtain a Medical Certificate that sexual intercourse has been committed with her and to use the same against Ahmad and others, himself committed sexual inter-course with the prosecutrix and produced her before the Medical Officer for examination.
(2) That the AST illegally and improperly detained Mst. Anwar from 18th July, 1981 to 28th July, 1981 and committed. Rape upon her several times.
(3) On 28th July, 1981 the Magistrate through a judicial order directed the AST to take Mst. Anwar to chak No. 400/GB presum--ably to the house of Ata Muhammad from where she was recovered.
13. The Magistrate deputed the AST as a 11i"' of the lady but he instead of performing his duties, took her to the house of Sadar Shah and others where she was subjected to rape.
(4) Before producing her in the High Court the A S I allegedly threat--ened her and compelled her to make a tutored statement.
14. It is unfortunate that despite the order of the High Court and the knowledge of the serious allegations detailed above which undoubt--edly disclosed the commission of various cognizable offences, the reason--dent did not care to register or investigate the case and by a single stroke, frustrated the order of the High Court by writing report declaring the allegations to be false and the A. S. I. Innocent. One can easily understand the motive behind the conduct of the respondent. It is crystal clear that in order to give undue protection to the Nazir Ahmad A. S. I. The reason--dent went to the extent of flouting and frustrating the order of this Court. As for the quality of apology the perusal of reply would show that after having attempted to justify the non-registration of case, the respondent tendered unqualified apology.
15. It is well settled that, each case has its own facts and the apology even unqualified and tendered at the earliest opportunity is not a completes defence to a charge of contempt in each and every case. There are cases in which despite unqualified apology having been tendered at the earliest oppor--tunity the contemners were severely dealt with by the superior Courts. The instant case is of the grossest nature. In order to save Nazir Ahmad A.S.I. Of the same Police Station, Muhammad Akram respondent deliberately, intentionally and mala fide disobeyed, disrespected, flouted and frustrated the order of the High Court.
16. To my mind, it is not a fit case where the notice issued to the contem--ner be recalled or discharged.
17. The contemner was the S.H.O. He is a man of mature mind. Ire fully knew what he was doing by flouting the order passed by the High Court which he was legally bound to honour. He purposely showed his utter disregard for the High Court's order. It is. Remarkable that after having made attempts to justify the non-registration of the case the respondent tendered unqualified apology.
18. 1n the interest of effective administration of justice a serious view of the matter has to be taken by this Court.
19. The upshot of the discussion is that I hold. Rana Muhammad Akram guilty of the contempt of Court punishable under section 4 of Me Contempt of Court Act, 1976. 1, however, treat the apology tendered by him as a mitigating circumstance and refrain from awarding maximum punish--ment to him. He is, however, sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 4,000 in default no sentence is imposed. The fine if not paid by him be recovered through attachment and auction of his property as arrears of land revenue.
20. He may be taken under guard till he furnishes bail bond under section 382-A, Cr. P. C. Or submits an application under section 426-A, Cr. P. C.1 for the suspension of sentence.