The facts giving rise to these proceedings in contempt, briefly, are that Abdul Malik petitioner filed W. P. No, 108/83/BWP seeking direction to the S. H.
0. P. S. Saddar, Sadiqabad to register a case. It was alleged that the S. H.O. Although informed about the commission of cognizable offence yet he did not register the case. On 30th April, 1983, my learned brother Muhammad Sharif, J. Directed the S. H.O. To register case and act in accordance with law. The then S. H.O. Was transferred. Saeed Ahmad Khan Inspector, the respondent was posted as S. H. O. Abdul Malik approached the respondent with the request to register case as directed by the High Court. Application to this effect was also sent through registered post. The petitioner contacted the A. S. P., Sadiqabad and S. P. Rahimyar Khan but all in vain. On this the petitioner has filed this contempt petition.
2. On 22nd August, 1983, the respondent was issued notice to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him. He filed his reply, on 28th August, 1983, which is as under {{URDU TEXT}} "Respondent No, 1 is directed to register a case against the respondents Nos. 2 to 10 and act in accordance with law." {{URDU TEXT}} Since I was not satisfied with the explanation and sufficient grounds were apparent on the record to believe that the respondent had committed contempt of Court. Furthermore, it was necessary in the interest of affective administration of justice to proceed against him, 1, therefore, recorded the order to that effect setting forth the substance of the charge against the respondent. He was informed of the grounds on which he was charged with the contempt of Court and was then called upon to show cause as to why he should not be punished. To this, he filed the following reply on 30th August, 1983.
S. H.O. {{URDU TEXT}}
3. The plain reading of this reply would show that he has tendered unqualified apology. He also stated in the Court that he would not contest the charge and would not lead any evidence in defence. On 31st August, 1983, Malik Yar Muhammad, Advocate on behalf of the accused and Haji Riaz-ud-Din Ahmad, Advocate for the State had addressed arguments.
4. The learned counsel for the accused argued that since the contemner has submitted unqualified apology and has not contested the charge, therefore, the notice shall be discharged and in any case a sentence of nominal fine would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. As against this, the learned counsel for the State had argued that unqualified apology tendered by the accused is not a complete answer to the charge and at the most it can be treated as a mitigating circumstance.
5. I have carefully attended to the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the tender of unqualified apology by Saeed Ahmad Khan accused tantamounts to admission of allegations against him. In his reply, dated 30th August, 1983 he has in clear words conceded his mistake. He has not cared to contest the charge. There is thus no room for any doubt that he is guilty of disobeying and disregarding the order of the High Court dated 30th April, 1983 which is punishable under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976.
It is now well-recognized that unqualified apology does not ipso facto purge the offence. The contemner cannot claim acquittal or discharge of notice as a matter of right on the strength of unqualified apology irrespective of its quality. Unqualified apology is also not a complete defence to the charge of Contempt of Court and whenever, indulgence is shown that is only by way of grace and Concession. As already stated, the accused tendered apology on 2 occasions, Since in the apology tendered by him in the beginning, the accused attempted to justify his action, the same, therefore, cannot be treated and termed as an unqualified apology. ' It was only after the final show-cause notice as to why he should not be punished that he made retreat and tendered unqualified apology admitting his mistake. The apology tendered by the accused on 2 occasions as reproduced above, when appreciated on the tests laid down by the Supreme F Court in case Yousaf Ali Khan v. State . It can hardly be accepted as sufficient amends for his conduct. In the interest of affective administration of justice, the accused has to be punished.
6. Coming to the question of sentence, I find that Saeed Ahmad Khan'accused is a responsible Police Inspector. He appears to be a man of matured mind. He fully knew what he was doing by disregarding the order of the High Court, which he under the law was bound to obey. His conduct before this Court appears to be a mere subter-fuge to avoid severe punishment. Despite this, since in some cases, justice has to be tempered with mercy, I am inclined to take lenient view on being persuaded by the facts that the accused is a first offender ; that he by tendering unqualified apology has thrown himself on the mercy of the Court ; that he has shown some gestures embodying expressions of regret ; that he, in the open Court asked to be pardoned ; that he confessed his guilt : lastly, that he has been entreating the Court to forgive him on the grounds that he has a service of more than 20 years at his credit ; and he has minor children to feed. Resultantly Saeed Ahmad Khan accused having been found guilty of Contempt of Court punishable under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, is sentenced to a fine of Rs, 3,000. In default thereof he would suffer 2 months' S. I. He is also reprimanded and warned to be careful in future.
I would like to add that in the peculiar circumstances of the case that the accused has a long service at his credit and has minor children to bring up, to my mind, the punishment awarded to him would meet the case Since in a contempt case State v, Qazi Muhammad Tufail it was observed by the High Court that the accused therein would not suffer any / departmental1 2 disqualification in respect of his service, therefore, following the same view, I also observe that Saeed Ahmad Khan Inspector shall not suffer any departmental disqualification or disability in respect of his service in connection with the instant case.
7. Before parting with the judgment, I am constrained to observe that a tendency is growing at the level of Station House Officers in Police Department to flout the orders of the Courts which they are legally bound to implement and obey. When a contempt notice is given they immediately tender unqualified apology and beg for mercy to save their skins. On the other hand, the High Court on the assumption and belief that in contempt matters it is better to forgive than to punish a mercy seeker and that by this grace, the dignity of this Court is more enhanced, either discharges notice or awards nominal punishments. It is really unfortunate that the indulgence thus shown by the High Court is now being misunderstood and misused by contemners particularly by Station House Officers. There are instances that the Police Officers/Officials -after having been discharged or leniently dealt with, have repeated the contempt of Court. For the affective administration of justice, it is necessary that a serious view of the matter be taken by all concerned. PLD 1970 SC 350 PLD 1977 Lah. 486