1. NAIMUDDIN, J.-On 13th February, 1979 one Muhammad Siddique son of Moharram Khan Gopang, filed in this Court an application under section 491, Cr. P. C. Against Rasool Bux Rahu, Inspector of Police, Police Station, Gambat, District Khairpur, Muhammad Rafiq, A. S. I., Police Station, Gambat, District Khairpur, and the State for the production of and setting at liberty the following four persons :- "(1) Wadero Muhammad Usman son of Moharram Khan Gopang,
(2) Shafi Muhammad son of Wadero Muhammad Usman,
(3) Ali Bux son of Haji Suleman Gopang, and
(4) Ghulam Qadir son of Safar Gopang."
2. On 1st April, 1979 the Court issued rule nisi for the production of the abovepnamed alleged detenus.
3. On 8th April, 1979, Rasool Bux Rahu, SubpDivisional Inspector, Gambat, respondent No, 1, appeared in Court alongwith Muhammad Usman and stated that he had not detained any of the persons named above. He however, stated that he had brought Muhammad Usman persuant to the order of the Court. Since Muhammad Usman stated that he was illegally confined for 4 months and further stated that Ali Bux son of Haji Suleman Gopang and Ghulam Qadir son of Safar Gopang were detained in Police Lock-up at Gambat, the Court directed the Civil Judge and 1st Class Magistrate, Gambat to visit the Police Lockpup and report, if Ali Bux son of Haji Suleman Gopang and Ghulam Qadir son of Safar Gopang were detained there. The Court further directed the Registrar of this Court to communicate the order to the Civil Judge and 1st Class Magistrate, Gambat that day and further directed him to obtain the reply of the Civil Judge on telephone by that evening or the next morning.
4. Muhammad Usman was, however, set at liberty to go away wherever he liked as he was not required in any other case according to respondent No, 1.
5. Accordingly, the Registrar reported to the Court that he had conveyed the directions of the Court to Mr. Sirajuddin Qureshi, Civil Judge and F. C. M Gambat, who informed him at 11-10 a. In, same day to say that the said two persons were not found in the Police Station Building, but they were detained in Police Custody in Police Lock-up behind the Court Building. Thereupon the Court directed to issue fresh production warrant for the production of the aforesaid two persons. Thereafter, on 9th April, 1979 in view of the abovementioned report of the Registrar, respondent No, I was directed to attend the Court next day when, according to the order, proceeding under the law might be drawn up against him. It was noted in the order that the facts brought on record indicate commission of offences under section 342, P. P. C. And under the contempt of Court Act, and the Court therefore, felt that the interest of justice demand that there should be a preliminary enquiry into this matter, and at the request of the Additional Advocate General the hearing was adjourned to next day and the respondent was directed to attend the Court on next day.
6. Accordingly, the case was taken up on 11th April, 1979 when the Court passed the following order :- 11-4p1979 "Mr. Yousuf Ahmed Jafri, Advocate for the petitioner.
7. Mr. A. Sattar Shaikh, Additional AdvocatepGeneral for the State.
8. "From the facts of this case already stated in the orders passed on the 8th, 9th and the 10th April, 1979, prima facie commission of an offence under section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act is indicated. We, therefore, issue notice to (1) Rasool Bux, Sub-Divisional Inspector of Police, Gambat Police Station, District Khairour and (2) Muhammad Rafiq, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Gambat, Distt. Khairpur to show cause why action in contempt should not be taken against them.
9. The hearing is fixed for 11th April, 1979 for this purpose.
10. This order does not mean that commission of any other offence on the facts disclosed is not indicated.
11. Rasool Bux, Sub-Divisional Inspector of Police, Gambat, is present in Court, and he shall be served with the showpcause notice.
12. Mr. Muhammad Hayat Junejo is present in Court, and he states that he will appear as a Counsel for Rasool Bux, S. D. I.
13. Since a Remand Order for the Custody of the two alleged detenus has been produced, and neither the legality nor the propriety thereof has been challenged in this petition, this Application under section 491, Cr. P. C. Fails and is accordingly dismissed. (Sd.)
14. Chief Justice (S d.) Judge."
15. Rasool Bux Rahu, respondent No, 1, was present in Court and he informed of the order.
16. Thereafter, on 21st April. 1979, he filed a written statement wherein he stated that he had called Wadero Muhammad Usman from his village and brought him to Court and All Bux and Ghulam Qadir were not in his custody. He explained that he had left Ranipur at 8-00 a. m. On 7th April, 1979 and that on 6th April, 1979 as well as on 7th April, 1979 early in the morning he had telephone S. H.O.
17. Haji Noor Muhammad whether any one of the aforesaid persons was in his custody but he was informed that no one of the named persons was detained by the police and on the information which he believed to be true, he had made the statement in this Court on 8th April, 1979 that Ali Bux and Ghulam Qadir were not in the custody. He however, further stated that Ali Bux and Ghulam Qadir were arrested on 7th April, 1979 at 5-00 p. m. At Village Gad Bus Stand Setharaja Road by A. S. I P. Abdul Razzak of Hingoro Police Out Post in the presence of Mashirs Khuda Bux and Ali Nawaz. He annexed to the statement a true copy of the mashirnama. He further stated that Ali Bux and Ghulam Qadir were brought at Gambat Police Station at 9-10 a. m. On 8th March, 1979 and this fact was entered in the Station Diary at Sr. No, 9 of the said date. He supported this statepment by filing a copy of the extract from the Station Diary.
18. Persuant to the enquiry Abdul Majeed, Mujchtiarkar Gambat, was examined on 11th November, 1979.
19. In the Examination-inpChief he stated that on 8th April, 1979 he was Mukhtairkar/F. C. M. At Gambat and on that date S. H.O., Gambat Police Station had moved an application under section 167, Cr. P.
20. C. For obtaining the remand of Ali Bux and Ghulam Qadir, who were shown as accused in Crime No, 197 of 1978 for offences under section 396/397, P. P. C. He has produced the application and also a copy of the investigation diary and after perusal of the same he further deposed that he granted the remand of the aforesaid two prisoners/accused by the order, dated 8th April, 1978 for 7 days and that he had forwarded a copy of the order of remand in police custody to the Court of Sessions on the same day as the offences were under section 396/ 397, P. P. C.
21. In cross-examination he stated that it was in his personal knowledge that accused person bad filed a revision application against the remand to police custody wherein he was made one of the respondent and he had engaged a counsel to represent him. The revision application was dismissed as withdrawn by the order, dated 2nd September, 1979. He also stated that the order of remand granted by him (Exh. 4) showed that he had asked Ali Bux and Ghulam Qadir whether they had been maltreated by the Police to which they had replied in the negative and they did not complain that they were illegally detained or confined by the Police, otherpwise, he would have noted such allegations in his order. He however, was unable to state the time when the order of remand was passed as the same was not noted in the order. He however stated that he had granted the remand during the Court hours in his Court and it was not correct that the Police had obtained the remand at his residence at about 5.00 p. m.
22. One of the alleged detenu Ali Bux was examined who depose as to the time when he was and the reasons why he and Ghulam Qadir were detained. He further stated that they were taken to Mukhtiarkar house at 6-00 p. m. For obtaining remand in custody and they had complained to the Civil Judge and F. C. M. As well as to the Mukhtiarkar of their illegal detention for 4 months in Police lock-up.
23. Having stated the facts we now proceed to examine the contentions raised before us by the learned counsel for the respondents.
24. Mr. Muhammad Hayat Junejo for the respondent No, I submitted that no case for contempt of the Court was at all made out under section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976. He further submitted that on 8th April, 1979 when the Civil Judge found Ali Bux and Ghulam Qadir in Police custody in Police lock-up they were detained, persuant to the order of remand passed by the Mukhtiarkar and F. C. M., Gambat on the same day, and therefore, on 8th April, 1979 when respondent made statement that he had not detained the applicants he did not knowingly make any incorrect or false statement for he was present in the Court on that date and did not know what had transpired behind him in Gambat therefore it cannot be said that he knowingly made an incorrect or false statement when he stated that he had not detained any of the persons alleged to be detained by him and he further submitted that the version of Ali Bux not be considered in this proceedings as otherwise it might prejudice the case under sections 396/397, P. P. C.
25. Taking up the first submission of learned counsel for respondent No, I that no case has been made out for contempt of Court, we may first refer to the provision of section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1979 which read as follows :- "Contempt of Court :-Whoever disobeys or disregards any order, direction process of a Court, which he is legally bound to obey ; or commits a wilful breach of a valid undertaking given to a Court or does anything which is intended to or tends to bring the authority of a Court, or the administration of law into disrespect or to disrepute, or to interfere with or obstruct or interrupt or prejudice the process of law or the due course of any judicial proceedings, or to lower the authority of a Court or scandalize a Judge in relation to his office, or to, disturb the order or decorum of a Court is said to commit contempt of Court. Provided the following shall not amount to commission of Contempt of : (I) to (X) (not material for this order)."
26. From the perusal of the above-quoted provisions it would appear that any person who disobeys or disregards any order of the Court which he is legally bound to obey commits contempt of Court. In the present case if the Ali Bux and Ghulam Qadir were detained in police lock-up when rule nisi was served on respondent No, I and he failed to produce the said persons in Court as was directed by the rule, he, it must be said, disobeyed or disregarded the order. Even an incorrect or false statement which is knowingly made may amount to contempt of Court for it may obstruct due A to process of judicial proceedings.
27. We may her refer to the following observations of Cornelius, C. J. In Abdul Hamid v. State "It cannot be too strongly emphasised that unless the agents employed for the execution of pre- emptory orders of the High Court issued in its high jurisdiction in habeas corpus as a Court of Record, are men of complete integrity, the exercise of that jurisdiction, and in the course of time the jurisdiction itself, are liable to be gravely prejudiced. In the present case, it can be held with complete confidence, not by reason of anything written or said by Fazal Ahmed, but because of H.
28. C. Abdul Hamid's unqualified admission of the allegations of fact made against him in the report, that there was indeed an action on the part of H. C. Abdul Hamid which clearly amounted to refusal to obey the orders of the High Court, and to obstruct the exercise of the High Court's power in habeas corpus. Had there been no such clear admission, the two variant statements of Fazal Ahmed were calculated to nullify the powers exercised by the High Court in the case, and it is to be hoped that due notice of this will be taken by those incharge of the administrative affairs of the High Court."
29. Therefore, if the allegations made against respondent No, I are true then he has committed contempt of Court.
30. However, the further question is whether in view of the evidence of Mr. Abdul Majeed, Mukhtiarkar and F. C. M., Gambat, and the mashirnama and the Diary Sheets which have been produced by respondent No, I it could be said which certainty that Ali Bux and Ghulam Qadir were detained in the Police Lock-up at the time when the rule nisi was served on the respondents or when respondent No, I made the statement in Court. Surely we cannot say so unless we accept the evidence of Ali Bux and completely ,disbelieve the Mukhtiarkar/F. C. M. And further hold that the documents produced by respondent No, I are manipulated documents. It is not possible at this stage on the state of evidence before us to hold that the Mukhtiarkar/F. C. M. Has made a false statement or documents are manipulated. So far evidence of All Bux is concerned we may not comment thereon for the reason that it might prejudice the case under section 396/397, P. P. C.
31. Instituted against him and Ghulam Qadir one way or the other. It is, therefore, not possible to hold that the said two persons were held in Police Lock-up at the relevant time. Since these proceedings are in the nature of criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings the allegations were required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt which is not the case here. Further, in view of the facts and circumstances of this case it cannot be said that respondent No, 1 was deliberately out to flout the order of the Court or to treat it with some degree of contumaciousness which inter alia, are the criteria holding that a person has committed contempt of the Court as laid down by Hamoodur Rehman, J. (as his Lordship then was) in Bahawal v. State . We may reproduce the relevant observations herein below :- "We rFspectfully agree with these observations and would venture to add that it is of the utmost importance that a cornmeal for contempt should not be made unless the disobedience shown is of such a serious nature as to indicate that the alleged contemner is deliberately out to flout the order of the Court and to treat it with some degree of contumaciousness."1 2 So far as respondent No, 2 is concerned he had made no statement and therefore, he could be charged only for disobeying the order of the Court but for the same reasons as given in the case of respondent No, 1 we would give the same finding as given in the case of respondent No,
1. We would therefore, discharge the notice against both the respondents.
32. We may record that the learned Additional Advocate/General, sind, Mr. Abdul Sattar Shaikh stated that no case for contempt of Court was made out against respondents Nos. I and 2 and, therefore, he would not support the notice. PLD 1964 SC 186 PLD 1962 SC 480