' Petition No, Criminal Miscellaneous 473/H of 1974, under section 491, Cr.F.C. came up before me for hearing on 28-6-1974 and I passed the following order: "Admit. Notice.
2. Let a bailiff of this Court proceed to recover the detune and produce him in this Court.
' Mr. Muhammad Munir, an Assistant in the Criminal Branch of this Court was entrusted with the execution of my order. Mr. Munir raided the Police Station Wandat Colony on 28-6-1974. As 29th was Saturday and 30th of June was Sunday, therefore, he submitted his report on 1-7-1974 when the case was fixed for hearing. He made the following report:-- "In compliance with this Court's order, dated the 28th June, 1974 I was deputed to recover and produce the alleged detenu, Nawazish Ali, from the custody of the respondent. The Police Station consists of 4/5 quarteRs, The petitioner, told me that the alleged detenu, Nawazish Ali is being kept in Quarter No, M/1.
' On 28-6-1974 I alongwith the petitioner reached P.S. Wandat Colony. The alleged detenu was found sitting on the ground in Qr. No, M/1. The other persons were also sitting with him. All of them were handcuffed by one hand. The other end of the handcuff was tied with the handle of a wooden box. There was none on guard there. Two constables were lying on beds inside the room in front of which the detenu was sitting. On my enquiry the detenu and his two companions told that they were kept there by Ch. Zahoor Ahmad, A.S.I. The constables also replied the same. Then I alongwith the petitioner entered the room of the Moharrir, disclosed my identity to him, and checked the Roznamcha. Last entry of the Roznamcha was numbered as 9, dated 28-6-1974. I .asked about the S.11.0. and Ch. Zahoor Ahmad, A.S.I. The Moharrir told me that they were sitting in the adjacent room.
I went there and asked the S.11.0. to show me papers, if there are any, about the detention of Nawazish Ali. The S.H.O. pointed out towards the A.S.I. (Ch. Zahoor Ahmad) who was in plain clothes and asked him to bring the relevant file. The said A.S.I. then went to the room of the Moharrir and after picking up the Roznamcha slipped away from the police station. I got up from the chair but the S.H.O. caught hold of me and said that the Roznamcha will be made available to me just after a few minutes. I noted down the time from my watch and it was 1-45 p.m. Then the S.H.O. sent a constable to bring the Roznamcha from the A.S.I. The constable brought the Roznamcha after 10 minutes i.e, at 1-55 p.m. On glancing at the Roznamcha I found that two more entries bearing No, 10 and 11 were added therein. Entry No, 10 was regarding the arrest of the detenu, Nawazish Ali and Entry No, 11 was a routine entry and consisted of one line. I began to write down my arrival report in the Roznamcha and again asked the S.H.O. to show me the F.I.R. register and Ziminies thereof in connection with which the detenu, Nawazish Ali, was required. He replied that the said detenu was required in a case F.I.R. No, 130, dated 21-6-1974, under section 382, P.P.C. He told me that as the said case was being investigated by Ch. Zahoor Ahmad, the file was with him. He again sent the constable to fetch the file and F.I.R. register from the A.S.I. and to tell the A.S.I. to come there with the file and the F.I.R. register. At 2-25 p.m, the constable returned with the file and F.I.R. register and told that the A.S.I. was not available and further that he had handed over the keys of the Almirah to him and the constable has brought the file and register from the Almirah. Last Zimini No, 3, dated 28-6- 1974 showed the arrest of the detenu. I signed the F.I.R. No, 130 and the Zimini and obtained copies thereof. Petitioner and I remained sitting in S.11.0's. room throughout this period. Copies ur Report Nos. 10 and 11 were also obtained. 1Vhile the copies of the above documents were being prepared, the S.11.0. left with the Moharrir who was preparing the copies, for the Mosque of Wandat Colony, saying that he had to arrest some persons from the Mosque who were debating about Anti- Qadiani movement. They turned up after half an hour along with one Farid Piracha and D.S.P. of the circle, Mr. Bajwa, was also with them. The S.H.O. asked me to have the copies after about an hour as they have to transport the above said Farid Piracha to Civil Lines Judicial Lock-up. The D.S.P. asked me about my visit and I told him about taking away the Roznamcha by A.S.I. Zahoor Ahmad. During all this time Zahoor Ahmad A.S.I. remained away from the police station. At about 5 p.m. when I again went to collect the copies the S.H.O. called the A.S.I. and asked me to forgive him as he was an old man and was at the verge of retirement. The said A.S.I. was having two stars on his shouldeRs, I asked him as to whether he was an A.S.I. or Sub-Inspector on which he said that he knows the tact's to escape from such things and threatened me that he was going to lodge a report against me and the constable (who brought the file and F.I.R. register) wherein he will allege that both these persons (constable and 1) had broken the lock of his Almirah and had removed some of his valuables. He also said that he had not whitened his hairs in the sun and that he will teach me a lesson for making a report against him. I wanted to record this in the Roznamcha but I was not allowed to do so. I then left the police station. The Notice issued by this Court was served upon the S.H.O. The petitioner asked me for the medical (examination) of the detenu but I told him that this can be done under the orders of the Court."
2. During the hearing of the case, it also came to my notice that Mr. Maqbul Ahmad Bajwa, Ichhra, who was informed of the taking away of the Roznamcha by the bailiff at the Police Station Wandat Colony, failed to take any action against the police officials, besides the S.H.O. Mr. Shafqat All Chatha and A.S.I. Zahur Ahmad, including Moharrir A.S.I. Muhammad Anwar, who allowed A.S.I.
Zahur Ahmad to take away the Roznamcha. Consequently on 1-7-1974 I ordered to summon both of them.
' At the request of the petitioner's counsel I directed the doctor in charge of Camp Jail, Lahore to examine the detenu Nawazish Ali, who had been lodged there by the police by that time.
' Learned counsel appearing for S.I. Shafqat All Chatha, S.H.O. and A.S.I. Zahur Ahmad, prayed for time to file a reply to the application (Criminal Miscellaneous No, 473/H of 1974) as well as to the report of the bailiff. The matter was adjourned to 4-7-1974.
3. On 4-7-1974, learned counsel appearing for S.I. Shafqat Ali Chatha and A.S.I. Zahur Ahmad filed reply (written statement) refuting all the allegations. Moharrir A .S.I. did not file any reply nor he was represented by any counsel even though he was asked to engage a counsel, if so advised.
' During the course of the hearing of the matter, Mr. Maqbul Ahmad Bajwa, D.S.P., admitted before me that the factum of the taking away of the Roznamcha by A.S.I. Zahur Ahmad from the police station was brought to his notice by the bailiff but he could not attend patiently because of the agitations during `those days and because of the fact that Farid Piracha had to be transported immediately to Civil Lines Police Station, However, he was allowed to go by me with a direction that he would be summoned again if required.
4. On 8-7-1974 as the allegations against the respondents-accused were serious, I recorded the statement of Mr. Muhammad Munir, Bailiff of this Court in the presence of the respondents and their counsel, who duly cross-examined the bailiff at length. A.S.I. Muhammad Anwar, who was not represented by any counsel was also given a chance to cross-examine the bailiff but he declined.
The bailiff in his statement fully supported the material allegations that were made against the respondents. On this date learned counsel appearing for S.I. Shafqat All and A.S.I. Zahur Ahmad submitted additional written statement and counsel for the petitioner, S.M. ljaz Ali, in the habeas corpus petition, also filed reply to the written statement. The matter was adjourned to 10-7-1974 for recording the statements of S.M. ljaz Ali, petitioner and Niwazish Ali, detenu, who had been granted bail by me in the meantime. On the adjourned date, i.e, 10-7-1974 the statements of S.M. Ijaz Ali and Niwazish All were recorded and they were cross-examined by the counsel for S.I. Shafqat Ali Chatha and A.S.I. Zahur Ahmad. These witnesses were also not cross-examined by Moharrir A.S.I.
Muhammad Anwar in spite of the fact that he was given the opportunity.
5. The jail doctor examined Niwazish An detenu on 2-7-1974 and submitted his report to this Court.
According to his report the duration of the injuries sustained by the detenu was 10-15 days which corresponded with his detention period. On 12-7-1974 I directed the issuance of the notice to A.S.I.
Zahur Ahmad, S.I. Shafqat Ali Chatha and Muhammad Anwar, Moharrir A.S.I., to show cause as to why they should not be punished for the contempt of this Court. The notices were in the following terms:-- ' A.S.I. Zahur Ahmad.
' That in the presence of the bailiff in the. Police Station Wandat Colony, Lahore, with a view to defeat the order of this Court, he took away the Roznamcha outside the police station with an ulterior motive and recorded report No, 10 therein regarding the arrest of Nawazish Ali, giving the time as 11 a.m., on 28-6-1974, the day bailiff raided the police station and he also wrote Zimni No, 3, dated 28-6-1974 of the arrest of Nawazish All even though the said person was with him since 22- 6-1974, as alleged in the petition, and which prima facie proves to be correct, and that he also threatened the bailiff of this Court with the registration of a false case of theft against him. By reason of the above, he is prima facie guilty of the contempt of this Court.
' S.I. Shafqat Ali Chatha, S.H.O.
' That in spite of the fact that the bailiff brought the factum of the taking away of the Roznamcha by A.S.I. Zahur Ahmad, for making false entries therein, to his notice, yet he failed to take any action in the matter, that when the bailiff tried to run after the A.S.I. Zahur Ahmad for taking back the Roznamcha, he caught hold of the bailiff from his arm and thus abstained him from going after the A.S.I. Zahur Ahmad. Moreover, by misusing his position as S.H.O. of the police station, he recorded report No, 14, dated 28-6-1974, in the Roznamcha, making certain allegations against the bailiff of this Court with a view to make a defence for himself, A.S.I. Zahur Ahmad and Moharrir A.S.I.
Muhammad Anwar for their illegal acts. By reason of the above, it is obvious that he is not only an abettor of the offence but he has also actually worked illegally for A.S.1. Zahur Ahmad and Moharrir A.S.I. to save them and also himself and that this act of his was also to defeat the order of this Court. He is, therefore, prima facie, guilty of the contempt of this Court.
' Muhammad Anwar, Moharrir A.S.I.
' That he also failed to take any action in the matter when the Roznamcha was taken away from him by A.S.I. Zahur Ahmad outside the police station with a view to making certain wrong and bogus entries therein about the arrest or otherwise of Nawazish Ali, for which purpose the bailiff had raided the police station. He has also abetted the offence by helping A.S.I. Zahur Ahmad in handing over the Roznamcha to him with a view to defeating the order of this Court. He is, therefore, prima facie, guilty of the contempt of this Court.
' The case was adjourned to 17-9-1974.
6. On the adjourned date Mr. Kamal Mustafa Bokhary, A.A.-G. at the relevant time appeared and sought an adjournment for preparing the case. The case was adjourned to 30-9-1974, on which date Mr. Chatha did not appear because of illness and the matter was adjourned to 21-10-1974. On 21-10-1974 Mr. Chatha did not appear and boilable warrants were ordered to be issued against him for 28-10-1974 but on this date it came to my notice that the office has failed to comply with my order, dated 21-10-1974 consequently the warrants were issued for 11-11-1974. The matter was then taken up on 25-11-1974 on which date Mr. Najam, A.A.-G. appeared he sought for an adjournment because no other law officer was present in Lahore. The case was adjourned to 5-12-1974 on which date Mr. Najam again sought an adjournment because he was deadly busy in the Courts and the case was adjourned to 21-1-1975 on which date the case could not be taken up because of Reference and Part-heard appeal. The case was adjourned to 27-1-1975.
7. During the course of arguments learned counsel appearing for the respondents (all the three) submitted further written statements on behalf of the respondents and he also submitted an unqualified apology on behalf of the three respondents which have been placed on the record.
8. Learned counsel for the accused-respondents contended that the bailiff when he first inspected the Roznamcha, the last entry was No, 9, he should have signed the said entry. He also contended that after that when he wrote report No, 12, he did not mention in the said report that reports No, 10 and 11 have been written later on and that report No, 10 was written in the Roznamcha after taking the same out of the police station by A.S.I. Zahur Ahmad with a view to defeat the orders of this Court. Failure on the part of the bailiff to do so clearly indicates that on 28-6-1974 no such incident as reported by the bailiff took place and that the bailiff, for reasons best known to him, at a subsequent stage made the allegations in his report. Learned counsel for the accused- respondents during the cross-examination of the bailiff was making out a case that the bailiff was not competent to examine the Ziminis but this stand was not taken during the arguments today.
9.I am afraid the argument of the learned counsel for the accused- respondents is fallacious. The facts of the matter is that the bailiff brought the incident of the taking away of the Roznamcha by A.S.I. Zahur Ahmad and an obstruction by the S.1. Shafqat AU when the bailiff tried to run after the A.S.I. and the collusion of Moharrir A.S.I. Muhammad Anwar in handing over the Roznamcha for making report No, 10 regarding the arrest of Nawazish Ali to the notice of D.S.P. Mr. Maqbul Ahmad Bajwa, the same day when the D.S.P. visited the Police Station Wandat Colony, which fact was admitted by the D.S.P. before me. Thus to say that the bailiff was not of the opinion to make a report in this respect is absolutely wrong. Moreover, at the end of his report No, 12, the bailiff has written that he shall make a detailed report to this Court. As to the objection that the bailiff was duty bound to make a mention of the incident in the report which he recorded in the Roznamcha is equally devoid of any force because no such duty is cast on the bailiff to make all the incidents in the report. He is supposed to bring all the facts to the notice of this Court, which he did. As already stated the bailiff raided the police station on 28th of June, 1974, 29th of June was Saturday and 30th was Sunday, thus he submitted his report on the working day, i.e, 1st of July, 1974. Even otherwise the report of the jail doctor which was obtained by this Court at the request of the counsel for the petitioner in the habeas corpus petition, who alleged that the police had belaboured Nawazish Ali during his detention by the police clearly indicated that the detenu Nawazish Ali was detained by the police since 22nd of June, 1974, as alleged in the petition because the duration of the injuries corresponded with the aforesaid date of detention. Thus there could be no denying the fact that after coming to know that a bailiff of this Court has raided for the recovery of Nawazish Ali, who had been under illegal detention of the police, the A.S.I. who was investigating the case finding himself in an indecent situation, took away the Roznamcha from the room of Moharrir A.S.I. and recorded report No, 10 in the Roznamcha regarding the arrest of Nawazish Ali and other persons who were found by the bailiff handcuffed. The Sub-Inspector Shafqat Ali Chatha and Moharrir A.S.I.
Muhammad Anwar helped the A.S.I. Zahur Ahmad in deliberately defeating the order of this Court.
9.The bailiff was cross-examined at length by the counsel for the accused-respondents but nothing could be elicited from him in favour of the accused-respondents. The other witnesses, namely, S.M. Ijaz AU, petitioner and Nawazish Ali, detenu, were also cross-examined but the learned counsel failed to get anything from them also. Rather the bailiff supported his report, dated 1-7- 1974 on all material points. The other witnesses also supported the report of the bailiff. Thus the report of the bailiff coupled with the statements of S.M. Ijaz AU and Nawazish Ali and what the D.S.P. admitted before me and also the medical report of the jail doctor go a long way to suggest that the A detenu Nawazish Ali was with the police since 22-6-1974 and that with a view to save their skin the police officers-respondents in collusion with each other provided an opportunity to A.S.I.
Zahur Ahmad to record report No, 10 in the Roznamcha regarding the arrest of Nawazish AU. The act of the respondents clearly amounts to contempt of this Court.
10.A.S.I. Zahur Ahmad, S.I. Shafqat Ali Chatha and Moharrir A.S.I.Muhagtinad Anwar respondents have tendered an unqualified apology art the end of the arguments, which has been placed on the record. It is proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the respondents in collusion with each other have made entry No, 10 in the Roznamcha by deliberately flouting the authority of this Court and they as police officers were expected to have greater respect for law. S.I. Shafqat Ali Chatha by abusing his position as a police officer and with a view to defeat the order of this Court wrote report No, 14, saying that the bailiff asked him to compromise the matter with the father of the detenu, and that he (the bailiff) would bring this fact to the notice of the Court and in case of non- compromise the Sub-Inspector would suffer. The action of the respondents is so grave that I refuse to accept. the unconditional apology, which even otherwise has been filed after the arguments in the case. They have been guilty of the contempt of this Court and their act is of a very grave character. In these circumstances I hold them guilty of the Contempt of this Court.
12. So far as the sentence is concerned, in view of the fact that their act is of a very grave character, I would have sentenced them to six months' S.I. but in view of .the fact that they are being prosecuted by S.M. Ijaz Ali separately in the lower Court and that they are facing the present proceedings for the last six seven months, I take a lenient view and sentence each of them to two months' S.I. and a fine of Rs,500 each, in default to suffer further S.I. for one month.
13. The respondents are present in Court and they have been taken into custody to serve the sentences imposed upon them. They have been handed over to the In charge of the Police Guard posted in this Court.
Contemnors sentenced.