1. WAHIDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-Those proceedings have arisen out of a contempt notice issued to Mr. Karamatullah Khan, respondent, dated the 6th May 1970. The allegation against the respondent is that in disregard of the warning of the Court and in violation of the undertaking given by him, he addressed letters dated the 20th of April 1970 and 25th April 1970, to Mr. Justice Sajjad Ahmad and Mr. Justice Muhammad Yaqub A.I, Judges of this Court, containing in the first letter a false allega-- petition that Mr. Justice Sajjad Ahmad had given personal interview to Mr. Abdul Khaliq, Treasury Officer, Peshawar, to enable him to explain his case (C. A. No. 2-P/1968) prior to the hearing of the appeal on the 24th and 25th of March 1970. He further stated in the said letter as under:- "This information was a highly welcome and heartening piece of news for me, inasmuch as I had always been under the impression that such interviews with Judges might precipitate action under contempt of Court. I congratulate your Lordship on this welcome change in your Lordship's concept of contempt of Court."
2. The respondent, Karamatullah, on the 14th May 1970, has stated in his reply that shudder of shame and repentance overpowered him which still persists. He admitted that it has been-most improper on his part to have written the two letters objected to, and submitted his unreserved and unqualified apology and offered himself for punishment that might be inflicted on him by the Court keeping in view the following mitigating circum--stances :- "(1) I solemnly state on an oath on the Holy Qur---an that the information contained in my letter of 20-4-1970, was given to me by no other person than Mr. Abdul Khaliq himself who was respondent in C. A. No. 2-P/1968. I am ashamed of having made that information the basis of my letter dated 20-4-1970 to Mr. Justice Sajjad Ahmad. That information had not in the least detracted from my complete faith in the integrity of his Lordship Mr. Justice Sajjad Ahmad. Mr. Abdul Khaliq too had not communicated to me that information in a sense which cast any improper reflection on his Lordship. In fact we both praised his Lordship's integrity and sense of justice at the time of our talk about the Court's judgment in C. A. No. 2-P/1968. This again I solemnly state on an oath on the Holy Qur'an.
(2) As regard my letter dated 25-4-1970, the circumstances that gave me the `faint feeling' stated in that letter are recorded in that letter. I have no other reaction but that of remorse and shame for having brought that `faint feeling' on the Supreme Court record. The purpose of writing that letter is also clear from that letter. That purpose did not in any way reflect adversely on their Lordships' integrity in my mind. I solemnly state on an oath on the Holy Qur'an that this was, and is, my state of mind vis-a-vis that letter."
3. It will thus be noticed that the respondent had not denied the writing of these letters nor has he disputed that they amount to contempt of Court. He addressed the Court at length and the impression gathered during the hearing was that he was not repentant and the apology which has been tendered by him is not sincere and unqualified. The mitigating circumstances shown by him are not at all mitigating circumstances. The conduct of the respondent is highly objectionable. On two previous occasions, contempt proceedings were taken against him. In the first case, he was only warned and on the second occasion, a fine of Rs. 200 was imposed on him. Mr. Justice Sajjad Ahmad has denied the statement of the respondent that he saw Abdul Khaliq before his appeal was heard. Similarly, innuendo made in the second letter that the q judgment in review petition was withheld from publication because of the realization by the Court of the weakness of the legal position stated in the last but one para. Of that judgment, is also scandalous and amounts to gross contempt.
4. The respondent, in spite of warning and sentence of fine of Rs. 200, has not mended his ways and is still indulging in' contempt. I entirely agree with the contention of the learned Attorney-General that the respondent has made a deliberate, attempt to impute false imputation to lower the authority oil this Court. He, therefore, deserves deterrent punishment. In the ordinary course I would have awarded him sentence of imprisonment but as he is an old man I would sentence him to al fine of Rs. 2,000 or in default to undergo three months' simple imprisonment.
5. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-I agree.
6. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-I agree.
7. M. R. KHAN, J.-I agree.
8. K. B. A. Contemner sentenced to fine.