' In the course of arguments in Criminal Miscellaneous 1367-H /84-WP titled Mabmood Elahi v. The State a petition under sections 491/498, Cr.P.C. The main contention of Malik Muhammad Din, the learned counsel for the petitioner therein was that remand/adjournment orders having been passed by Mr. Atta Muhammad Zaffar, Magistrate 1st Class, Ahmadpur East in reckless disregard to the mandatory instructions given by this Court in case Ghulam Sarwar and another v. The State reported as 1984 P. Cr. L J 2588 for the grant/refusal of remand/ adjournment in criminal cases, the detention of the accused persons was illegal and as such they were entitled to be released on bail on this ground alone. To substantiate this, he placed on record copies of orders passed by the Magistrate on 13-9-1984 and 22-9-1984 marked 'A' + 'B'. On examination, I found that the allegations against the Magistrate of having flouted the guideline given by this Court in judgment referred to above, were factually correct. It appeared that the Magistrate had continuously been violating the directions/instructions of this Court. I was, therefore, convinced that the Magistrate had passed orders in disobeyance of and in disregard to the directions/instructions given by this Court in the aforesaid judgment and as such had rendered himself liable to prosecution under the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, so I issued him a suo motu notice to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him. Today, he has entered appearance. In his reply marked 'C' he did not contest on factual side. Having raised the plea of inadvertance, he submitted unqualified apology.
Since this apology was tendered with an attempt at justification, to my mind, it was not an unqualified apology but an apology simpliciter. In the circumstances I was of the view that for the effective administration of justice, it was necessary to proceed against him under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976. I, therefore, recorded order to that effect setting forth the substance of charge. He was informed of the ground on which he was charged with contempt of Court. I, then called upon him to show cause as to why he should not be punished. On this he tendered unqualified apology vide reply marked 'D'. He did not contest the charge.
2. Sardar Ashiq Muhammad Khan, the learned counsel for the accused submitted that since the contemner has not contested the charge and has tendered unqualified apology, therefore, notice shall be discharged. In the alternative, he requested for leniency in the sentence. As against this, the learned Assistant Advocate-General argued that unqualified apology tendered by the accused is not a complete answer to the charge and at the most it is one of the mitigating circumstances.
3. I have attended to the submission made by the parties with care. It is by now well-settled that the tender of unqualified apology tantamounts to admission of the allegations. Even otherwise, from the trend of the orders of remand/adjournments passed by the Magistrate on applications for remand, no room is left for doubt that he had been disobeying and flouting instructions of this Court in the matter of remand/adjourments. The commission of an offence of contempt of Court punishable under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 by the accused/Magistrate, thus, stands proved.
4. Coming to the legal aspect of the case, it is well-recognized that unqualified apology does not ipso facto purge the offence and that unqualified apology is not a complete answer or defence to the charge of contempt. The contemner cannot claim acquittal or discharge of notice as a matter of right on the strength of unqualified apology and that whenever indulgence is shown that is only by way of grace. Citizens genuinely complain about the delay in the disposal of cases. My assessm ent was/is that in trials before the Magistrates and Court of Sessions, one of the main causes of delay is the reckless grant of remand/adjournment by the Magistrate. To achieve speedy trial, I had given authoritative directions/instructions to the Magistrates in the matter of grant of remand/adjournments. This was not only reported as 1984 P Cr. L J 2588 but the copies of the judgment were also made available to all the District Magistrates/S.Ps. And Sessions Judges of the Punjab. While disposing of Criminal Original No, 33 of 1984 titled The State v. A .C. Minchanabad, I painfully noted that the Magistrates were not following instructions given by this Court. The Magistrates were, therefore, once again reminded that under the law, they were bound to obey the authoritative instructions/directions given by this Court in case Ghulam Sarwar and another v. The State. It is really unfortunate that Atta Muhammad Zafar, Magistrate 1st Class has been showing sheer disregard to the orders of this Court. For all these reasons, I am of the view that in the interest of effective administration of justice, the accused has to be punished under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976.
5. This brings me to the question of sentence. I find that Atta Muhammad Zafar is a responsible Officer. He fully knew what he was doing by disregarding the orders/instructions/directions of this Court which he under the law was bound to obey. Despite these observations since the accused has tendered unqualified apology and has placed himself at the mercy of the Court. I refrain from sending him to jail and sentence him to a fine of Rs,5,000, in default thereof 1] months' S.1. The fine shall be deposited in this Court within two weeks.