ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.---The petitioner, Mr. Yusuf Ali Khan, an Advocate, was convicted of contempt of Court, on 17-12-1968, by a Division Bench of this Court. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 or, in default, to undergo further simple imprison--ment for the same period. This sentence was to run concurrently with the sentence awarded to him in another contempt matter. The Bench also remarked that the West Pakistan Bar Council should be requested to consider whether the petitioner was a fit person to continue as an Advocate as the contempt proceedings had revealed a serious mental defect in the petitioner having a direct bearing on his fitness to continue to act as an Advocate of this Court.
2. The petitioner went up in appeal to the Supreme Court but did not succeed. Thereafter, he applied for a review of the Judgment of the Supreme Court, but his application was rejected by their Lordships on 27-4-1971. That judgment is reported as Yusuf Alt Khan v. The State (PLD 1971 SC 508One of the questions specifically raised by the petitioner in these review proceedings related to the reference made to the Bar Council under the orders of the Division Bench. Their Lordships upheld the view previously expressed by them in appeal, namely, that "Indeed the irresponsible conduct of the appellant does cast a serious doubt upon his suitability to function as a member of the Bar", and that in this view of the matter, they felt that no justification was made out for them to interfere, but they went on to observe that "The reference to the Bar Council by the High Court was in the nature of a punishment imposed by the High Court. It is, therefore, open to the High Court to remit or reduce this punishment if it so considers fit. As was pointed out by this Court in the case of Syed Israr Hussain, the fact that the High Court has become functus officio in the matter of conviction for contempt, does not debar it from still remitting the punishment".
3. The present application has been filed by Mr. Yusuf Ali Khan in pursuance to the observation of their Lordships of the Supreme Court and the prayer made is that not only should the reference to the Bar Council be withdrawn but even the sentence of fine be remitted and the amount paid by him be refunded. It may be stated that he has already undergone the sentence of simple imprisonment for one month.
4. It will be seen that, on merits, the observations made by the High Court regarding the desirability of examining whether the petitioner should continue on the roll of Advocates of the High Court, has been upheld by their Lordships of the Supreme, Court, both in appeal and review. However, their Lordships have regarded the reference as being in the nature of a punishment and have observed that the High Court has the power to remit the sentence.
5. We find that while dealing with the question of the power of the High Court to remit the punishment, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have specifically referred to Syed Asrar Hussain's case (PLD 1954 FC 313). In that case, the power to remit the sentence was directly inferred from the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926. Such being the cask, we are unable to accept the contention put forward by Mr. Yusuf Ali Khan, that the power of remission spelt out by the Supreme Court, is a general and unlimited power, not related to the Statute concerned. Accord-- ingly we propose to dispose of the present application in the light of the relevant statutory provisions.
6. Section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926 reads as follows :- "3. Limit of punishment for contempt of Court.--Save as otherwise expressely provided by any law for the time being in force, a contempt of Court may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both: Provided that the accused may be discharged or the punishment awarded may be remitted on apology being made to the satisfaction of the Court: Provided further that notwithstanding anything elsewhere contained in any law no High Court . . . . .
Shall impose a sentence in excess of that specified in this section for any contempt either in respect of itself or of a Court subordinate to it."
7. It seems to us that the first proviso to section 3, as reproduced above, contemplates two categories of cases in which apology is tendered by the condemner to the satisfaction of the Court ;
(a) before conviction, in which case the accused may be discharged ;
(b) after conviction, in which case, the punishment awarded may be remitted.
Now, in the present case Mr. Yusuf Ali Khan had tendered an 4 apology during the course of contempt proceedings, and the effect of the apology was duly considered by the Bench before convict--ing and sentencing him. Under the circumstances, Mr. Yusuf Ali Khan's case does not fall under either of the two categories covered by the first proviso. He already stands convicted and , sentenced, after his apology was found to be unsatisfactory by the Court. We are, therefore, respectfully of the view that we do not, have any power or jurisdiction, in terms of section 3 of the Act, 1926, to remit the punishment already awarded to Mr. Yusuf Ali Khan.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. It is now for the Bar Council to decide the reference in accordance with the law. 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.