1. ' SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.--In C.P.No,D-659/88 pre-admission notice was issued by this Court for service on respondent No,1, who is Income-tax Officer, Circle XV East Zone, Main. Income-tax Building, Karachi vide order dated 21-6-1988. Bailiff Abdul Sattar reported that Income-tax Officer, Circle XV East Zone misbehaved with him, refused to accept process of the Court and had the Bailiff pushed out from his room. Notice was issued to the alleged contemner to appear in person in the Court on 30-6-1988 to show cause why he should not be punished under the provisions of Contempt of Court Act, 1976. On 30-6-1988 alleged contemner Anisur Rehman appeared in the Court and submitted in writing unconditonal apology but asserted therein that he received notice from the Bailiff and was in the process of checking to find out whether the case pertained to his jurisdiction and asked the Bailiff to wait but Bailiff went away taking notice and other papers with him.
2. Allegation of Bailiff made as such was denied. On the same day charge was framed under section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 to which the alleged contemner pleaded not guilty.
3. ' The operative part of the charge is reproduced as under:-- "That you insulted and misbehaved with Bailiff of the High Court on 25-6-1988 when he came to serve you with notice in connection with Constitutional Petition and you refused to accept the notice and asked him to leave your room and when he insisted for service of notice you called two men and asked them to push Bailiff out of your office. Those men pushed Bailiff out of your office and thereafter you came out and threw notice at him and said that you were not afraid of High Court and the Bailiff was at liberty to go and do whatever he liked."
4. ' On 12-10-1988 statement of Bailiff Abdul Satter was recorded in the Court and he was cross- examined on behalf of alleged contemner. Bailiff deposed that on the said date he went for service of notice and in this connection met Clerk Muhammad Saeed Khan, who directed him to go to the office of alleged contemner. He offered notice to the alleged contemner, who read it and asked the Bailiff to go and wait outside. He waited outside for about half an hour and then again went inside the office and requested Income-tax Officer to receive the notice. Alleged contemner asked the .Bailiff to get out or he would be pushed out. Bailiff asked for return of notice, upon which alleged contemner called two persons out of whom one was bearded and both, these persons physically pushed him out. Mr. Anisur Rehman came out and threw notice at Bailiff and asked him to get the notice endorsed by 'E' Division and then he would accept it. Alleged contemner further declared that he was not afraid of any High Court and asked the Bailiff to do whatever he liked. Bailiff further deposed that he pasted the notice on the door of the office and nobody was prepared to be a witness. Bailiff was cross-examined on the line of defence plea that Income-tax Officer had called Clerk Muhammad Saeed Khan to check out whether the case 'related to his jurisdiction but Bailiff did not wait, snatched the notice and went out in hurry. Bailiff also denied this and presence of any other person in the office of alleged contemner at the relevant time except two persons who were called by the alleged contemner to physically push him out.
5. ' Statement of alleged contemner was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. And he denied allegations of contempt against him. According to him Bailiff came to his office and at that time Mr. Ahmed Saeed, Income-tax Officer was sitting with him. After the entry of the Bailiff in the office an assessee by name Mr. Shamsi also came. After perusal of notice from the Court he called Muhammad Saeed Khan, U.D.C. And asked him to check the list of cases which were transferred to him from other Circles. While Muhammad Saeed Khan was checking the list, Bailiff snatched the notice from the hands of Muhammad Saeed Khan and went away. Alleged contemner offered to examine four witnesses, who were all examined on the same day. He requested that the Court may issue process against assessee Rasheed Ahmed Shamsi and in that context he made an application which was allowed.
6. ' D.W. 1 Ahmed Saeed is Income-tax Officer and at the relevant time was assigned Circle 18 East Zone. He claimed to be sitting with the alleged contemner discussing a case. Further he supported the story of alleged contemner relating to the incident. In cross-examination he admitted that he is a friend of alleged contemner and went to see him as a friend. He further stated that one assessee by name Shamsi also came and met alleged contemner at the relevant time.
7. ' D.W.2. Is Muhammad Saeed Khan, U.D.C. In his deposition he has admitted that Bailiff first came to him with notice and he advised him to go and see Income-tax Officer Mr. Anisur Rehman. Further, after a short while he was called by Mr. Anisur Rehman. He gave him the notice and asked him to check the register to find out whether the case was in the list of cases assigned to him. Remaining story of incident deposed by this witness is same as that of alleged contemner. In cross- examination with regard to demeanour observation was made by the Court that this witness was talkative and tried to dramatise. He was unable to say as to how many cases of assessment were fixed before Anisur Rehman on that day. He remembered that Mr. Shamsi had come to the alleged contemner not in connection with any case but in connection with claim of his refund.
8. ' D.W.3 Muzaffar Khan stated in his deposition that he was Daftari and was attached with Mr. Anisur Rehman. He is the person with beard who was referred as such by Bailiff Abdul Sattar. He has supported the story of incident as narrated by alleged contemner. He has denied the allegation that he pushed out the Bailiff from the room of alleged contemner or alleged contemner asked him to push the bailiff out. In cross-examination he gave the graphic account with details and exact timings as to who came in the office of his boss on the day of incident. He further stated that as Daftari he used to take care of files and some times he mended and dusted them and some times he used to sit outside in the office at the door.
9. ' D.W. 4 Muhammad Asghar deposed that he was Naib-Qasid attached with Mr. Anisur Rehman and was sitting outside the door of the office when Bailiff walked in without permission. He stayed outside but Muzaffar went inside the office after Bailiff. He remembered that U.D.C. Muhammad Saeed Khan was called in the office. He stated that half an hour before the arrival of Bailiff came Mr. Ahmed Saeed, Income-tax Officer and one minute after entering of Bailiff in the office came Mr. Shamsi, who told him that he wanted to see Mr. Anisur Rehman in connection with hearing of his ease. He did not prevent Mr. Shamsi.
10. ' Last defence witness examined by the alleged contemner is Mr. Rasheed Ahmed Shamsi. He deposed that he imports papers from foreign countries and he knows Mr. Anisur Rehman. He met Mr. Anisur Rehman in connection with refund of his excess payment of income tax. He had met Mr. Anisur Rehman previously who asked him to come again on 25-6-1988 as orders of refund had to be approved by the Commissioner. On 25-6-1988 he was present in the office of alleged contemner when incident took place. At that time one other Income-tax Officer was present and there were members of the staff as well. There was one man about him later he learnt that he was Bailiff of the High Court. This witness further deposed that Mr. Anisur Rehman asked Bailiff to sit down and asked Clerk Saeed Khan to check the record. Bailiff was in a hurry and he picked up notice from the table and went away. In cross-examination this witness admitted that he met alleged contemner 4 or 5 times and he did not remember the dates except the date on which the incident took place. He further stated that he received cheque of refund after 10 or 15 days of the incident. He denied allegations made by Bailiff about being insulted and pushed out physically from the office of alleged contemner and his derogatory remarks about the High Court. He has also admitted that after the incident he was informed by Mr. Anisur Rehman about contempt case and he was alerted to be ready as he might be called as a witness. This witness subsequently produced documents in support of his assertion with regard to the sanction of refund which are on the record as Exhs. D/1 to D/2.
11. ' The question that arises for consideration is whether contempt was committed as is alleged by the Bailiff. On this point there is report of Bailiff in writing and his statement recorded on oath. Apart from that Bailiff has not been able to produce any witness in support of his story of incident. He made it clear that incident took place in the office of alleged contemner hence nobody was prepared even to attest pasting of notice on the door of the office of the alleged contemner after refusal of acceptance of notice and pushing out physically of the Bailiff by the men of alleged contemner. On the other hand, alleged contemner has examined five witnesses as his defence witnesses who have supported his story. It is not material that alleged contemner wanted to find out whether case in connection with which notice was sent to him by the High Court related to his Circle or not or was transferred to his Circle or not because this fact is admitted that Bailiff brought the notice to him and there was talk between them. From this point onward two versions arise, one of the Bailiff and the other of, the alleged contemner as to what transpired. According to the Bailiff he was asked to wait outside, was insulted and pushed out, notice and other papers were thrown at him and alleged contemner uttered derogatory remarks that he did not care about the High Court and was not afraid of any High Court. The other version is of alleged contemner that he asked the Bailiff to wait so that enquiry may be made about that case but the Bailiff was not prepared to wait and was in a hurry and took away the papers. Allegations made by the Bailiff are categorically denied by the alleged contemner.
12. ' Mr. Sharaf Faridi, counsel for the alleged contemner argued before us that there are two sets of evidence in support of the two different claims with regard to the story of incident. Both are to be read in juxtaposition with each other. While Bailiff has not produced any other witness, alleged contemner has examined five witnesses. Regardless of quantity of evidence produced by the alleged contemner, even if the Court is not prepared to believe the story of alleged contemner, then too it does create doubt in credibility of the story of the Bailiff. He further submitted that proceedings in a contempt case, though not criminal, are of a quasi-criminal nature and, therefore, where there is any reasonable doubt, the person charged with contempt is entitled to the benefit of such doubt. In support of the proposition he has cited cases of State v. Dasrath Jha AIR
(38) 1951 Patna 443, Dr. Mazhar Ali Hashmi v. Abdul Qadir and others PLD 1971 Lah. 278 and Mian Qadiruddin and another v. Mian Ghulam Yaqoob Bandey and another 1977 SCMR 475. In the last mentioned case it was held by the Supreme Court that in a case of contempt of Court all doubts are to be excluded before recording the conviction.
13. ' On the question of evaluation of evidence brought on the record, we do not hold that statement of Bailiff is false because he has not been able to produce any other witness in support of his claim and further because alleged contemner has produced as many as five witnesses to support his story but we feel as held in the pronouncements of superior Courts mentioned above that there is room for doubt and benefit of which must go to the alleged contemner. In the talk between alleged contemner and Bailiff, something had transpired which is not clearly stated and that is why there are two different versions of the incident. In the ordinary course Bailiff is also not motivated against the alleged contemner, who is also supposed to deal with and accept notices from the Court in his official capacity. Since the law requires that conviction can only be recorded if every possible doubt is excluded, we propose to give benefit of this doubt A to the alleged contemner.
14. ' Mr. Muhammad Faridul Haq, Advocate for the petitioner submitted before us that alleged contemner cannot claim acquittal for the reason that his conduct is to be taken into account and he did not tender unqualified apology and took up the plea to justify his stand. In support of the proposition he relied upon the cases of State v. Qazi Muhammad Tufail PLD 1977 Lah. 486 and Amir Hussain v. Muhammad Rafique and others 1985 P.Cr. L.J.
108. In both the reported cases contemners tendered unqualified apologies and threw themselves at the mercy of the Court after pleading guilty.
15. ' In the instant case, we find that after issue of show-cause notice alleged contemner when he appeared in the Court on 30-6-1988 submitted his unconditional apology in writing but in this writing he did not plead guilty but gave his own version of the incident. At the end of this writing he stated in unequivocal words as under:-- "that I hereby tender unconditional apology to this Hon'ble Court and pray f9r mercy."
16. ' In other words after denying the "allegations made against him alleged contemner gave his own version of the incident and then threw himself at the mercy of the Court and tendered unqualified apology. Since another version was given, in the interest of justice we wanted to find out as to who is speaking the truth. Now two versions are available on the record which are divergent in nature, which have created room for doubt and benefit of which according to law has to go to the alleged contemner. Even otherwise as stated by Mr. A . A . Mohammadally, Additional Advocate-General, Sind that alleged contemner has suffered agony of ordeal of contempt proceedings and has been attending the Court on each date of hearing which must have caused him sufficient mental anguish. We, therefore, give him benefit of doubt and acquit him.
17. Acquittal ordered 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.