' The background of these proceedings under Contempt of Court Act, 1976 against Nazir Ahmad Qureshi, Additional Sessions Judge (hereinafter referred to as respondent), presently posted at Mianwali, briefly is, that on 26-12-1975, a case under section 324/34, P.P.C., F.I.R. No.124/75 was registered against Saeed Ahmad Lashari (hereinafter referred to as petitioner), Fazal Ahmad, Zia- ud-Din and Haji Zahoor Ahmad at Police Station Dera Nawab Sahib on the report of one Muhammad Bukhsh. The case was tried by the Civil Judge 1st Class/Magistrate Section 30, Ahmadpur East, who vide his order, dated 27-6-1983 convicted the petitioner and three others, under section 325/34, P.P.C. And sentenced them to two years' R.I. And a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default six months' R.I. Each (as it appears from Memo of Revision Exh. R.11). The four convicts filed appeal titled 'Saeed Ahmad Lashari and others v. The State' in the Court of Sessions Judge Bahawalpur.
The appeal was ultimately entrusted to respondent and the file of the appeal was received in his Court on 21-5-1985 when he was on leave. The appeal was placed before him for the first time on 28-5-1985. The petitioner and 3 other appellants therein, were present and on the request of their counsel the hearing of the appeal was adjourned for 11-6-1985. On 11-6-1985, the counsel for the appellants, again requested for adjournment and appeal was adjourned to 7-7-1985. On 7-7-1985 the arguments of the parties were heard and the case was fixed for orders on 18-7-1985. Since the Stenographer was not available, so the judgment could not be dictated on 18-7-1985 and the appeal was adjourned to 27-7-1985 for orders. On 27-7-1985, the respondent was on summer vacations, so Nazir Ahmad Ahlmad D.W.2 wrote order adjourning the case to 12-9-1985. He then presented the file of appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur for signatures on the orders. The learned Sessions Judge changed the date from 12-9:4985 to 7-8-1985. He stated in the order: {{URDU TEXT}} 7-8-1985 The summons were accordingly issued to the petitioner and others for 7-8-1985. On 7-8-1985 Fazal Ahmad and Zia-ud-Din appellants appeared before the respondent, petitioner and Zahoor Ahmad co-appellants did not enter appearance. The case was adjourned to 15-8-1985 and fresh notices were issued to them. On 15-8-1985, Fazal, Zia-ud-Din and Saeed Ahmad Lashari, appeared before the respondent but Haji Zahoor Ahmad did not turn up. An application for adjournment was moved on his behalf by petitioner on the ground that the former had gone to Karachi and no notice of the changed date was served on him. On this application, the respondent issued bailable warrants for the arrest of Zahoor Ahmad. He also directed the petitioner to inform Haji Zahoor Ahmad to appear on the next date and adjourn the case to 17-8-1985. In the meantime, it so happened that on 15-8-1985, the petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.1176-T/85-BWP in the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur for the transfer of his criminal appeal titled 'Saeed Ahmad Lashari and others. v. The State, from the Court of respondent, to some other Court of competent jurisdiction. Since 16-8-1985 was a holiday, therefore, the transfer application filed by Saeed Ahmad Lashari was fixed on 17-8-1985 before my learned brother Muhammad Sherif, J. Who was pleased to call for comments from the respondent and stay the proceedings in the appeal before the respondent vide his order, dated 17-8-1985. Now the allegations against the respondent are that although he was informed of the stay order and he knew that proceedings in appeal titled 'Saeed Ahmad and others. v. The State' had been stayed yet in sheer disregard and disobedience of the order of the High Court, he pronounced judgment dismissing the appeal. Consequently, the petitioner and others, the appellants therein, were taken into custody and sent to jail on the same day. On 20-8-1985, Saeed Ahmad and others, filed revision against the order of dismissal of their appeal by the respondent in the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur. One of the grounds taken in the revision petition was that the impugned order having been passed in violation of order of High Court staying proceedings before the respondent, was quite illegal. The revision came up before my learned brother Muhammad Sherif, J. On 21-8-1985. Qazi Khalil Ahmad Advocate appeared for petitioners. He brought it to the notice of his Lordship that despite information of the stay order issued by the High Court, the respondent had announced the judgment. On this My learned brother Muhammad Sherif, J.
Directed respondent to appear on 17-9-1985 and show cause as to why he should not be punished for flagrantly violating the stay order of this Court? My learned brother directed the Office that the matter be placed before the Senior Judge of Bahawalp.Ur Bench. My learned brother also directed the petitioner to make proper application and append affidavit to the said effect. After his release on bail, the petitioner, on 8-9-1985, filed application alongwith' affidavit supporting the allegations of wilful violation of the stay order of this Court by the respondent, hence these proceedings in Contempt.
2. In pursuance to the order, dated 21-8-1985 respondent appeared before the High Court on 29-9- 1985. He filed written reply to the show-cause notice wherein he pleaded want of knowledge and information of the stay order issued by the High Court. After going through the reply, my learned brother Khizar Hayat, J found that it was necessary in the interest of effective administration of justice to proceed against the respondent. So, a notice disclosing the substance of allegations against him within the meanings of section 4 read with section 7 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, was given to the respondent and he was called upon to show cause as to why he should not be punished. The respondent then filed reply to this notice on 15-1-4986. While contesting the charge against him, he stated that he had no knowledge of the filing of the transfer application by Saeed Ahmad Lt shari in the High Court and that he was not informed about the stay order issued by the High Court on 17-8-1985 before he announced the judgment and that he came to know only on 19-8-1985 when he received the order of High Court calling for his parawise comments to the transfer application filed by Saeed Ahmad Lashari. Since the respondent had denied the allegations, therefore, petitioner was called upon to produce evidence in support of the allegations.
3. To prove the charge, the petitioner appeared as P.W.1 and produced Muhammad Ashraf P.W.2 and Fazal P.W.3. The petitioner stated:-- "On 15-8-1985, I moved application in the High Court for the transfer of appeal from the Court of Nazir Ahmad Qureshi, Additional Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur to some other Court of competent jurisdiction. This application was fixed for 17-8-1985. On 17-8-1985 I appeared before Honourable Muhammad Shard, J. Who was pleased to stay the proceedings in the appeal before Nazir Ahmad Qureshi, Additional Sessions Judge at about 10-00 a.m. Thereafter, I applied for the certified copy of the stay order. The copying agency issued me a Parchi at about 11-00 a.m. Or 11-15 a.m. I than appeared before Nazir Ahmad Qureshi Additional Sessions Judge and informed him of the stay by the Court. I also showed him the Parchi issued by the Copying Agency. On this, the Additional Sessions Judge directed me to produce copy of the High Court order. I deputed Ashraf for obtaining the certified copy of the order of the High Court. I, then, came to the District Court and remained outside the Court Room of the Additional Sessions Judge. Muhammad Ashraf brought certified copy of the order at 1-00 p.m. Or 1-15 p.m. Thereafter, the case was called. I appeared before Nazir Ahmad Qureshi Additional Sessions Judge and produced the copy of the stay by the High Court. He read that order and simultaneously announced the judgment dismissing our appeal. Nazir Ahmad Qureshi then remarked that:-- ' Now you can seek remedy from the High Court."
' Muhammad Ashraf P.W.2 stated that on 17-8-1985, Saeed Ahmad Lashari (petitioner) deputed him for obtaining the certified copy of the order passed by the High-Court from the Copying Agency and himself went to Court of Session, taking with him the Parchi issued by the copying agegcy. At 1- 00 p.m., the copy of the order of the High Court was supplied to him. So, he went to the Court of Session on rickshaw and passed on the certified copy of the order of the High Court to the petitioner. Fazal P.W.3 was a co-appellant in the appeal titled 'Saeed Ahmad Lashari and others v.
The State'. He supported the petitioner. The petitioner also tendered in evidence. Annexure 'C' certified copy of the stay by the High Court on 17-8-1985 which was issued by the Copying Agency on the same day. In defence the respondent produced'two witnesses. Abdul Ghafoor,Naib-Court D.W.1 stated that on 17-8-1985, the appeal of Saeed Ahmad was dismissed by the respondent so he arrested the petitioner and two co-appellants. The witness stated that he did not remember the time of announcement of the judgment. Nazir Ahmad D.W.2 was working as Ahimad in the Court of respondent. He stated that the file of the appeal was received in the Court of respondent on 21-5-1985; that on 27-7-1985, respondent was on summer vacation; so he wrote an order adjourning the case to 18-9-1985 and that when he produced the file before the learned Sessions Judge, he (the Sessions Judge) changed the date and issued notice to the appellants for 7-8-1985. On 7-8-1985, two of the appellants namely Fazal and Zia-ud-Din were present, and summons were issued to Saeed Ahmad Lashari and Haji Zahoor Ahmad for 15-8-1985. On 15-8-1985 Haji Zahoor Ahmad was not present and bailable warrants for his appearance were issued for 17-8-1985. The witness identified signatures Exhs. R.1 to R.7 of, the respondent on various orders passed from 28-5-1985 to 17-8-1985.
He also identified signatures R.8 and R.9 of the respondent on applications, dated 15-8-1985 and 17-8-1985 filed by Saeed Ahmad Lashari appellant on behalf of Haji Zahoor Ahmed. The witness stated that after the dismissal of appeal, he had prepared warrants for the execution of sentence.
He, however, did not remember the time of the preparation of the warrants. The accused gave evidence in his defence in disproof of charge against him. He stated that the file of the appeal was presented before him for the first time on 28-5-1985. He heard the arguments advanced by the parties on 7-7-1985 and adjourned the case to 18-7-1985 for orders. Since Stenographer was not available, therefore, he could not dictate the judgment and adjourned the case to 27-7-1985. He further stated that on 27-7-1985 he was on summer vacations and in his absence, Nazir Ahmad D.W. 2 wrote order adjourning the case to 12-9-1985 which was subsequently changed by the learned Sessions Judge from 12-9-1985 to 7-8-1985. On 7-8-1985 Saeed Ahmad and Haji Zahoor Ahmad appellants did not appear before him so fresh notices for their appearance were issued for 15-8-1985. On 15-8-1985, Zahoor Ahmad appellant was absent. He issued bailable warrants for the arrest of Zahoor Ahmad and also asked the petitioner to produce his brother Haji Zahoor Ahmad, on the next date and adjourned the case foi' 17-8-1985. On 17-8-1985 the appellants other than Haji Zahoor Ahmad entered appearance. Ghulam Rasool son of Saeed Ahmad filed application for adjournment of case on behalf of Haji Zahoor Ahmad. The application was also signed by Saeed Ahmad, but he for the reason given by him in order R.7, refused to adjourn the case and announced the judgment, dismissing the appeal at 11-30 a.m. And that he was not informed about filing of the transfer application on 15-8-1985 or on 17-8-1985. He stated that neither any Parchi issued by the Copying Agency, nor the stay order passed by the High Court was shown to him on 17-8-1985. He explained that the stay order issued by the High Court Was received by him on 19-8- 1985 through covering letter of Additional Registrar, dated 18-8-1985. He admitted that when he announced the judgment, his Reader, Ahmad Hassan was present in the Court. It may be noted that he had cited Ahmad Hassan as a defence witness and on his application Ahmad Hassan was summoned as a defence witness but before the statement of Ahmad Hassan could be recorded as a defence witness, he closed his evidence. The petitioner then moved application for the examination of Ahmad Hassan as a Court witness. I declined to summon him as Court witness on the application of a party and while rejecting the application, I observed that on the conclusion of the defence evidence, if I feel that his evidence was essential for the just decision of the case, I may summon him. Since, thereafter, the accused in his statement on oath stated that his Reader Ahmad Hassan was present in the Court when the judgment was announced, therefore, on the conclusion of the defence evidence, I summoned the Reader as a Court witness. He did not support his Additional Sessions Judge (the respondent) on the crucial points i.e. The time of announcement of judgment and knowledge of accused of stay order. He stated that the judgment was announcned not at 11-30 a.m. (as stated by the respondent) but was announed in the last Court hours. He stated that before the judgment could be announced, the petitioner had come in the Court Room. The, respondent was sitting in his Chamber at that time. Saeed Ahmad Lashari had told him that proceedings in the appeal had been stayed by the order of the High Court and had also shown him Parchi issued by the Copying Agency relating to the supply of the copy of the stay, by the High Court. On this he (witness) went to the respondent and informed him about the order of the High Court staying proceedings in the appeal. The witness stated that he had also brought it to the notice of respondent that a Parchi issued by the Copying Agency was with the petitioner. He denied the suggestion that the accused used to snub and admonish him on account of his (witness) objectionable activities. He denied the suggestion that he was threatened by petitioner to make statement against respondent. After recording of the statement of the Court-witness, the respondent was afforded opportunity to produce further evidence in defence but he declined to do so (hereinafter the respondent will be called as accused).
4. The learned counsel for the accused contended that the accused has not committed the contempt of Court inasmuch as he did not know about the filing of transfer application and the issuance of stay order by the High Court when he announced the judgment in appeal titled 'Saeed Ahmad and others v. The State'. The learned counsel argued that Saeed and the two witnesses produced by him are not reliable; that Saeed Ahmad did not give information of the filing of transfer application and the stay order of the High Court in writing to the accused; that although the petitioner filed two applications for the adjournment of case on behalf of Zahoor Ahmad co-appellant on 15-8-1985 and 17-8-1985 yet he did not mention the factums of transfer application and stay orde'r of High Court; that the statements of the prosecution witnesses suffer from discrepancies and contradictions and that the statement made by Ahmad Hassan Reader that Saeed Ahmad Lashari had come to him and informed him about the stay order and had shown parchi issued by the Copying Agency to him is inadmissible because Saeed Ahmad has not stated so and that Ahmad Hassan has given false statement at the instance of the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned prosecutor maintained that the charge has successfully been brought home through reliable evidence, to the accused.
5. I have attended to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care and have reviewed the entire evidence that has been produced by the prosecution and the accused and the circumstances appearing in the case, with care. I propose to discuss the prosecution case and its evidence first in order to come to an independent conclusion as to its truth or falsity. From the aforesaid state of affairs, it is very much obvious that the facts that the appeal titled 'Saeed Ahmad Lashari and others v. The State' was entrusted to accused; that he heard arguments of the parties on 7-7-1985 and adjourned the case to 18-7-1985 for orders; that on 18-7-1985 the case was again adjourned to 27-7-1985 for orders; that on 27-7-1985 the accused was on summer vacation; that on 27-8-1985 Nazir Ahmad Ahimad D.W.2 wrote order and adjourned the case to 12-9-1985; that when the file was placed before the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalpur for signatures on the order written by the Ahimad, the learned Sessions Judge changed the date from 12-9-1985 to 7-8-1985 and directed that the appellants be summoned for 7-8-1985; that summons for the changed dates were issued and served on Zia-ud-Din and Fazal who appeared before the respondents on 7-8-1985; that on 7-8-1985, the petitioner and Zahoor Ahmad appellants were summoned for 15-8-1985; that on 15-8-1985 the petitioner appeared in the Court although no summons/ notice was served on him; that on 15-8-1985 the petitioner filed application on behalf of Haji Zahoor Ahmad for adjournment on the ground that the latter had gone to Karachi and was not aware of the changed date; that the accused issued bailable warrants for the arrest of Zahoor Ahmad and adjourned the case to 17-8-1985; that in these circumstances, Saeed Ahmad Lashari filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.1175-T/85-BWP for the transfer of appeal from the Court of accused in the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench on 15-8- 1985 which was fixed as urgent/motion on 17-8-1985; that on 17-8-1985, the transfer application was put before the High Court and comments were called for and proceedings in the appeal were stayed; that petitioner on the same date applied for the certified copy; that the copying agency normally issues Parch' for the delivery of the copy to the applicants; that the certified copy of the stay order of the High Court was prepared and actually supplied by the Copying Agency on the same day i.e. 17-8-1985, are the admitted and undisputed facts of the case. The controversy between the parties relates to two crucial questions, firstly, the time of the announcement of judgment in the appeal and secondly the communication of the stay order to the accused before the decision of appeal. The petitioner asserts that stay order was passed by the High Court on 17- 8-1985 at 10-00 a.m.; that he applied for the certified copy of the stay order and copying agency issued chit at 11-00 a.m. Or 11-15 a.m.; that thereafter, he informed the accused about the issuance of stay order and also showed him chit issued by the Copying Agency; that the respondent insisted on the production of certified copy of the stay order which was obtained on the same day and shown to him who simultaneously announced the judgment and remarked that "Now you can seek remedy from High Court". On the other hand, the accused refutes the aforesaid assertions of Saeed Ahmad Lashari. His plea is that he had announced the judgment on 17-8-1985 at 11-30 a.m. And by that time he did not know about filing of the transfer application in the High Court and the stay order issued by the High Court and that for first time he came to know only on 19-8-1985 about the filing of transfer application and stay by the High Court. I have considered the controversy between the parties very seriously. I find that the statement made by petitioner is in consonance with the probabilities, materially fits in with rest of evidence and is confidence inspiring. He moved transfer application on 15-8-1985 and engaged a counsel. The application was fixed for hearing before the High Court on 17-8-1985. The High Court called for parawise comments from the accused and stayed the proceedings in appeal on 17-8-1985 at 10 a.m.; that there is no dispute as to the time when the stay was granted; that on his own showing the accused announced judgment at 11-30 a.m. i.e. After 11 hours after the passing of the stay order by the High Court and that High Court Bench is about one mile from Court Room of accused. In these circumstances, there is no reason as to why Saeed Ahmad should not have brought the stay order to the notice of respondent. There could be no wisdom behind withholding information of stay order issued by the High Court. The petitioner is an educated person. He is Head Clerk in the Office of the District Manager, Auqaf, Jhang. He was not expecting fair treatment from the respondent, so he had moved application for the transfer of his appeal from the Court of respondent. He had engaged counsel. He had successfully obtained the stay order. In the ordinary course of events he could not have suffered dismissal of his appeal resulting in his conviction and commitment to custody silently. It seems to me that the statement made by Saeed Ahmad Lashari that he had brought the factum of the stay order passed by the High Court to the notice of the respondent before the latter could announce the judgment dismissing the appeal, runs parallel to the natural probabilities and is virtually true. The statement made by petitioner is not only supported by Muhammad Ashraf and Fazal P.Ws. But also finds support from the statement made by C.W. Ahmad Hassan, Reader of the accused and from circumstances appearing in the case, Ahmad Hassan has stated that he had brought the factum of stay order of the High Court to the notice of respondent before he announced the judgment and that the judgment was not announced at 11-30 a.m. As claimed by respondent but in the last hours of the Court. Furthermore, application for copy of the stay order was given on the same day. The certified copy of the stay order was also prepared and physically delivered on the same day. The prosecution witnesses have successfully faced the test of cross-examination. Their statements do not suffer from infirmities such as material contradictions/major discrepancies and dishonest improvements. Since the two applications given by the complainant were for adjournment on behalf of Haji Zahoor Ahmad, therefore, the non-disclosure of the filing of transfer application and the stay by the Court in those applications is quite understandable. No doubt, Ahmad Hassan, Reader .C.W.1 has given different manlier of the communication of the stay order of the High Court but the fact remains there that the order of the High Court staying proceedings in the appeal had been brought by him to the knowledge of the accused before announcement of judgment. Ahmad Hassan Reader has no connection with the petitioner. He was cross-examined by accused but nothing advantageous to him could be elicited. The accused has failed to impeach the credit of this witness. Adverting to the plea of accused that he had announced the judgment at 11-30 a.m.
And that he was not aware of the order of the High Court when he announced the judgment and that for the first time he came to know of the stay order of the High Court on 19-8-1985, I find that the two defence witnesses namely Nazir Ahmed Ahlmad of his Court and Abdul Ghafoor, Naib- Court of his Court have not supported him on the point of the time of announcement of judgment.
They stated that they do not remember the time when the sentence warrants were prepared and the appellants were arrested by them, after the dismissal of the appeal. Ahmad Hassan Reader has contradicted him by stating that the judgment was announced in the last Court hours, the communication of the stay order of the High Court to him, his Reader betrays him. His plea, in the circumstances of the case as detailed above also runs counter to the natural probabilities. In the ordinary course of events the petitioner who had successfuly obtained stay order at 10-00 a.m. Would not have hesitated to bring the issuance of the stay order by the High Court to the notice of the accused, more particularly at the time when his appeal was dismissed and he was taken into custody. At that time nothing could restrain him from divulging the factum of the stay oder of the High Court. The accused's plea that despite the grant of stay order in his favour, the petitioner had not disclosed it to him, does not appeal to reason. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused do not carry any weight. For all these reasons I hold Nazir Ahmad Qureshi Additional Sessions Judge/ accused, guilty of an offence punishable under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976.
6. This brings me to the question of sentence. It is really sad that the accused, who is a responsible Judicial Officer, subordinate to the High Court, has committed worst type of contempt. Instead of obeying the order of the High Court which he was legally bound t obey, for the reasons best known to him, may be that he wanted t please the complainant party of the case, he wilfully and flagrantl violated the order of the High Court in a hasty and unusual manner. Although on 15-8-1985, he had issued bailable warrants for th appearance of Haji Zahoor Ahmad, one of the appellants, and had adjourned the case for his appearance to 17-8-1985 and the warrants had not been received back served/unserved, yet he announced th judgment of conviction in his absence. He fully knew what he was doing so by disobeying the order of the High Court. By announcin the judgment in the existence of the stay order of the High Court, he not only shew reckless disregard and disrespect to the order of th High Court but also virtually frustrated the power of the High Court to pass proper orders in the transfer application and he was fully conscious of it, because in his parawise comments to the transfer application he stated that "the appeal has already been disposed of on A 17-8-1983. Therefore, the transfer application moved by the appellant Saeed Ahmad has become infructuous which requires to be dismissed." Strangely enough instead of feeling sorry for what he had done, he suggested to this Court that on account of the disposal of appeal be him on 17-8- 1985, the transfer application filed in the High Court had become infructuous and merited dismissal. I am convinced that the accused does not deserve any leniency and it is necessary in the interest of effective administration of justice that he should be severel dealt with. So, he is awarded the maximum sentence of six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000 or in default thereof furthe simple imprisonment for one month. It is, however, directed that the sentence awarded to him shall not be executed until the expiry of period prescribed for making an appeal against his sentence or if an appeal is made within that time until the sentence of imprisonment is confirmed by the Appellate Court, if he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar of this Bench, for his appearance before this Court on 5-7-1985. A copy of this judgment be sent to the Registra of the Lahore High Court, Lahore for placing it before my Lord, the Chief Justice, Lahore High Court, Lahore for information and necessary action.
Contemner convicted. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.