1. ' In the middle of July, 1983 a document which has been marked as Annexure "A" was received by me in my Chambers. It is not known who had delivered it but I found that this document was in the nature of a memorandum prepared by some police officer giving the gist of speeches made by some persons at a meeting held on 1-7-1983 at 6-40 p.m. Near Quarter No, 26 in Area D-3 at Landhi. The document shows that a meeting had been held there which was addressed by several other persons besides Sardar Sher Baz Khan Mazari. What is ascribed to be the speech of Sardar Sher Baz Khan Mazari was to the following effect:- "I ask the Judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court that you had signed the Constitution of elected representatives, that you will abide by Constitution, 1973 but had preferred a Military Constitution instead of the Constitution of 1973, and took an oath from the gang of Military Rulers.
2. Do you not feel ashamed. The nation was cursing you Judges."
3. ' I have not thought it fit to reproduce remaining portion of the transcript because it is not relevant to the present case.
4. ' On a reading of the aforesaid document an impression was created in my mind that the words were derogatory to the prestige of superior judiciary and prima facie a notice under the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, should be issued. A notice was in such circumstances issued to the respondent to appear and show cause against action.
5. ' The notice could not be served on the respondent and I was informed that the respondent had been detained in custody. For the first time the respondent appeared in Court on 20th May, 1983 and he filed a reply. In the reply the respondent stated that the extract was not the actual speech or words used by him but this was only an impression recorded by a semi-educated policeman. It was stated by the respondent that he always had respect for the judiciary and has struggled for citizens' rights and independent judiciary. It was stated that the respondent could never say anything that was derogatory to the prestige of the superior or lower judiciary of the country, or to bring the administration of justice into contempt. At the end the respondent had once again stated that he holds very high respect for the judiciary of the country and he denied having used any derogatory words to lower the prestige of the judiciary. Along with this statement dated 20th May, 1984 the respondent also appended an extract from his speech delivered in the National Assembly on 4-9-1976. The purpose appears to be to show that when the Constitution of 1973 was being amended in order to reduce the powers of the superior Courts he had opposed such an amendment. Copies of some other statements made by the respondent on other occasions were also filed and in each one of these statements the respondent had stated that he had consistently and vehemently supported the independence of judiciary and supremacy of law. In short all the copies of such statements annexed to the statement dated 20th May, 1984, appear to be placed on record to show that the respondent had always advocated independence of the judiciary being a strong organ of the Government.
6. ' No formal charge had been framed because before framing a formal charge under sections 6 and 7 of the Contempt of Courts Act I had thought that the authenticity of the statements attributed to the respondent should be first verified. What was more that the document on the basis of which action had been taken had not been signed by him. In these circumstances I asked the learned Advocate-General to inform the Court whether any evidence or any source report was available in support of the document which may form a basis for the case of contempt. On 25-9- 1984 Mr. Abdul Sattar Shaikh the Additional Advocate-General filed a list of witnesses and out of these five witnesses four were present before me on 15-10-1984. These four witnesses were Inspector Habib Ahmad, Sub-Inspector Zaki, Assistant Sub-Inspector Muhammad Afzal and Head Constable Muhammad Waqil. It was the case of the State that each one of these four persons could give evidence in regard to the respondent's having said what was attributed to him.
7. ' Inspector Habib Ahmed stated before me that he had no knowledge about this speech whatsoever. A.S.I. Muhammad Afzal stated that he had only received a phone call from Head Constable Muhammad Waqil stating that there was a meeting which had been addressed amongst others by Sardar Sher Baz Khan Mazari. This witness went on to state that he recorded whatever information Head Constable Muhammad Waqil gave him. A.S.I. P. Zaki stated that he was present at the meeting alongwith Head Constable Muhammad Waqil and such words as are attributed to the respondent (reproduced above) were spoken by him. He however stated that Head Constable Muhammad Waqil "had recorded whatever was being said". He even went on to state that he had seen the transcript. Head Constable Muhammad Waqil also attributed the same speech to the respondent but in his evidence he had stated that he was just listening to the speeches of the various speakers which continued for about two hours. He went on to state that no record of words by tape-recording or taking of shorthand notes of the speech was made by him.
8. He even went on to state that "whatsoever had been spoken by the speakers during this one hour and 45 minutes was conveyed by him to A.S.I. Muhammad Afzal". In the next paragraph he said that no notes had been prepared by him at the time of speeches were being delivered. A few questions were put to this witness by me in order to test his veracity, on the point of adequate opportunity being available for hearing and remembering whatever was said by various speakers during these two hours. In that context he stated that speeches were being delivered in a Shamyana which had dimension of 36 feet by 18 feet and he was standing outside the Shamyana at the distance of 5/6 paces. No loudspeakers were used and speakers were addressing the meeting from the farthest point in the Shamyana so that although the witness stated that he was only 5/6 paces away it is clear from his evidence that he was 5/6 paces from the entrance of the Shamyana and to that extent another 36 feet of the length of Shamyana has to be added. This would mean that if at all he heard those speeches it was from the distance of about 50 feet. No loud-speakers having been used the audibility would be low.
9. ' Looking to the evidence of the witnesses examined in this Court one can be left in no doubt that the allegations against the respondents are doubtful. Two out of the four witnesses namely Habib Ahmed and Muhammad Afzal have hardly any evidence to give. The remaining two witnesses S.M.
10. Zaki and Muhammad Waqil have contradicted each other on material points. Admittedly Muhammad Zaki had kept no record but he states that Muhammad Waqil had recorded whatever was being said and he had even seen that transcript. On that point he has been contradicted by Muhammad Waqil himself who stated that he had not recorded anything. Even notes were not prepared. It would thus be seen that there is no cogent evidence in record to allegations made against the respondent. Apart from whatever is stated above Mr. Azizullah K. Shaikh has also been heard by me. He has produced extracts from the news media of Karachi published on 2nd July, 1983 viz, the day following the meeting. Urdu newspapers Nawa-e-Waqt, Jasarat and Amn have been produced before me and said newspapers contained same report in regard to the meeting that had been held. It is correctly pointed out by Mr. Azizullah K. Shaikh that what is attributed against the respondent in relation to the superior judiciary of this country has not even been mentioned in any of these newspapers. Besides these three full newspapers extracts from some other newspapers have also been placed before me and very significantly these newspapers also do not carry any such news which is the subject-matter of this case.
11. ' I have asked respondent again today and he vehemently states that what is being attributed to him is absolutely incorrect. In fact his stand is that he holds the judiciary in esteem and could imagine making statements such as are being attributed to him.
12. The entire evidence relating to the alleged contempt has been considered by me and I am of the view that this is not one of those cases in which any charge should be framed against the respondent.
13. ' The notice given to the respondent to appear and show cause why action should not be taken against him under the Contempt of Courts Act is recalled.