' Atta Muhammad Zafar, Magistrate First Class, Ahmadpur East was convicted by me on 14-10-1984 in Criminal Original No, 40 of 1984/BWP for having committed contempt of Court by violating order/ directions given by this Court in the matter of remand/adjournments in a case Ghulam Sarwar and another v. The State reported as 1984 P Cr.J 2588. He was sentenced to a fine of Rs,5,000 in default thereof to S.I. For 11/2 months. He was allowed two weeks' time to pay the amount of fine which he has deposited within time.
2. After his conviction Atta Muhammad Zafar petitioner filed this Criminal Miscellaneous No, 1526- M/BWP of 1984, for his discharge of remission of sentence under proviso as to section 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1976 wherein he stated that he had been repenting and feeling extremely sorry over his act and assured that he will be more vigilant in future.
3. In addition to what has been written in the petition, Attu Muhammad Zafar who appeared in person before the Court stated that he was really repentful and promised to be careful in future.
The learned A.A.-G. Has not opposed the petition.
4. 1 have considered the submissions made by Atta Muhammad Zafar petitioner with care. I find that he has by now adopted correct attitude. He has physically thrown himself at the mercy of this Court so much so that he did not file any appeal against his conviction. In the Court I found him feeling repentence giving assurance that he will be careful in future and offering pure unqualified apology. His conduct appears to be sincere and not subterfuge to avoid punishment which furnishes the evidence of real contrition. From the manner in which he prayed for forgivingness and indulgence and absolute assurance given by him that he would not repeat what was done by him, I feel convinced that by now he had purged himself. This Court after having announced the judgment of conviction does not become functus officio in contempt matters and is quite competent to discharge the convict or remit the sentence at any time. The relevant provisions of law may be reproduced conveniently:- ' Section 4--Punishment.--Whoever commits contempt of Court or abets the commission of contempt of Court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both: ' Provided that, on being satisfied that the accused, whether after defending himself or without offering any defence, has purged himself of the contempt of Court, the Court may discharge the accused or remit his sentence."
Since I am virtually convinced that the petitioner/contemner has by now purged himself. I feel that grace lies in forgiving him rather than sustaining his conviction. Furthermore I understand that the object of conviction of Magistrate has been achieved to some extent. It has come to my notice that after his conviction the Magistrates in Punjab are strictly following the statutory provisions, High Court Rules and the directions given by this Court in the case law referred to above. Consequently in hundreds of cases investigations have been rapidly completed and challans submitted in Courts. Citizens generally complain about the delay in the disposal of cases particularly in the submission of challans, my assessme nt was/is that in trial before the Magistrate and the Courts of Sessions, the main cause of delay is reckless grant of remand/adjournments by Magistrates.
Thousands of cases were reported pending in the police stations for months together. In several cases the challans were not submitted for a year or two because of reckless remand/adjournments given by the Magistrates. To alleviate the sufferings of the complainants therein and the accused as well, I had given authoritative directions to the Magistrates in the matter of grant/refusal of remand/adjournments. I feel that for the effective administration of justice it was very much necessary to prosecute and punish those who do not obey the directions given by this Court. So I convicted Atta Muhammad Zafar. Since after his conviction he has purged himself, I think it is better to forgive than to punish a mercy seeker and that by this the grace and dignity of this Court is more enhanced. For all these reasons I have decided to discharge him honourably. The fine already paid by him shall be refunded.
5. Before parting with the judgment I would like to add that a tendency is growing at some level to flout the orders of the superior 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 skin and when grace is shown and the notice is recalled, they forget everything. On the other hand the High Cowl on the assumption and belief that in contempt matters it is better to forgive than to punish a mercy seeker either discharges notice or award nominal punishment. Now that I have shown grace and indulgence and have discharged the Magistrate/accused, I would like to make it clear that the indulgence thus shown by me should not be misunderstood and misused and the directions/orders given by me in the matter of remand/adjournments shall be strictly followed. Non-compliance and disobedience shall be severely dealt with.
Contemner discharged.