1. ' NAS1M HASAN SHAH, J.-Munshi Muhammad Sharif, an ex-Patwari, was dismissed from service by the Assistant Commissioner, Gujrat. His appeals etc. Against his order having failed he moved the Punjab Service Tribunal, but his said appeal also did not bear fruit and was dismissed. No further steps to challenge the order of his dismissal, by moving this Court, were, thereafter, taken by him.
2. ' However, on 23-64981, he approached the Assistant Commissioner, Kharian, alongwith a uncertified copy of, an order, purporting to be an order passed by this Court, wherein there was an observation while dism;ssing his appeal, to the effect that the administrative department may give Muhammad Sharif another chance by appointing him a Patwari afresh. On the strength of this order, he was again appointed as Patwari but was directed to supply a a certified copy of the order of the Supreme Court. Since he was avoiding compliance with this direction the Assistant Commissioner, Kharian approached the Registrar of this Court with a request to supply a certified copy of the order of the Court. On a scrutiny being made in this connection, it was discovered that the order presented to the Assistant Commissioner, Kharian, purporting to be the order of this Court (a copy whereof was sent to this office), was, in fact, a forged and fabricated document. According to the said copy, the order purported to have been passed in Appeal No, 511 of 1981 in the case entitled uh am ma d Sharif v. Tribunal, whereas no such appeal was filed in this Court, muchless decided by it. According to the said copy, the appeal was heard on 23-6-1981 and the order was passed by a Bench consisting of Wahiduddin Ahmad, Muhammad Akram and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ., whereas, in point of fact, two of the said Judges, namely, Wahiduddin Ahmad and Muhammad Akram, JJ. Had long since retired (having retired on 6-2-1979 and 12-8-1979, respectively).
3. ' Since Muhammad Sharif was, prima facie, guilty of forging and fabricating an order of this Court and using it to derive illegal benefit from it and had thereby committed a contempt of the Court he was summoned by the Registrar of this Court to explain his position. In the statement made by him before the Registrar he stated that after his removal from service he had filed a petition in the Punjab Service Tribunal which was dismissed ; that he had thereafter engaged Malik Muhammad Zaffar, Advocate of Gujrat for filing an appeal in the Supreme Court ; that the forged judgment of the Court, which he produced before the Assistant Commissioner, Kharian, and on the basis of which he was re-instated in service, was, according to him, supplied to him by Malik Muhammad Zaffar, Advocate.
4. ' A notice was, thereafter, sent to Malik Muhammad Zaffar, Advocate, to appear before the Registrar, but the notice was received back with a report that Malik Muhammad Zaffar had died in a car accident on 28-11-1982.
5. ' It is noteworthy that Muhammad Sharif, in his statement made before the Registrar, had candidly admitted that he had no record of the appeal allegedly filed by him through Malik Muhammad Zaffar, Advocate ; that he had never visited the Supreme Court Office with his Advocate for filing the petition nor had gone there to attend its hearing.
6. ' In these circumstances, as it appeared that the name of Malik Muhammad Zaffar, Advocate, was mentioned by Muhammad Sharif falsely, knowing very well that he had already died and that it was Muhammad Sharif who had fabricated the forged judgment, a notice was issued to him to show cause why he should not be punished for committing contempt of this Court.
7. ' In his reply to the above show-cause notice, the contemner again took up the position that the copy of the order had been supplied to him by Malik Muhammad Zaffar, Advocate. However, when he appeared in Court today, before us, accompanied by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record, he practically admitted his wrong doing and begged for pardon and submitted an unconditional apology.
8. It is not possible to accept an apology in this case. The contemner has been guilty of a very serious misconduct. He has not only fabricated an order of the Supreme Court but used it for obtaining re- instatement into service knowing full well that no such order existed. He has, therefore, been guilty of grossly abusing the process of the Court and scandalising it. He is clearly guilty of contempt of Court and no apology can mitigate its gravity. He is, therefore, convicted thereof. Although he deserves maximum punishment provided for in law, but in view of his large and impoverished family we have taken a lenient view and sentence him only to three months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs, 5,000 or in default of payment of fine undergo one month further simple imprisonment.