' These contempt proceedings have arisen from the following facts: On 5-4-1989, Writ Petition No,416/89 filed by one Rana Muhammad Akram, a Fourth Year student of Govt. Faridia Degree College, Pakpattan, challenging validity of the elections of the students union of the college held on 9-3-1989, came up before me for considering question of interim relief, i.e, , to restrain the respondents (returned candidates of the students union) from acting as office-bearers. Mian Abbas Ahmad, Advocate (hereinafter called the respondent/contemner) appeared for the petitioner and from amongst the opposite party Ch. Muhammad Qasim, Acting Principal (respondent No,1) had appeared. I declined the interim relief whereupon the respondent/contemner requested that the said writ petition be fixed for final hearing for some immediate and actual date. As I was not agreeable to it, the respondent/contemner adopted disrespectful attitude towards me and addressing me in loud voice repeatedly imputed partiality calculated to scandalizing and bringing this Court into disrepute, whereupon I issued notice to him to show cause why he should not be punished for committing contempt of Court by having recorded the following order:- "(2) At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some actual and immediate date be fixed for final hearing of the writ petition because tenure of elected office-bearers of the Students Union is only one year and that if hearing is delayed, this petition would become infructuous. I told the learned counsel that after all other parties have to be heard and then the matter would be decided. At this he insisted at pitched voice that some actual date be given in the matter. I told him that this matter shall be given preference over other cases but actual date cannot be given whereupon the counsel remarked addressing me disrespectfully that I was favouring the respondent's group by not fixing the case for actual date because they belong to Jamaat-e-lslami. I said, whether he realizes implications of what he uttered whereupon he insisted and repeated the said remarks. The counsel time and again interfered and obstructed me while I was dictating this order.
(3) By making the above-mentioned scandalizing remarks in open Court, Mian Abbas Ahmad, Advocate, interfered with judicial proceedings. He was disrespectful to Court. He lowered the authority and also scandalized the Judge of this Court in relation to his office. Prima facie his conduct is covered under section 3 of Contempt of Court Act and Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It is necessary in the interest of effective administration of justice to proceed against him. I hereby issue notice to the counsel to show cause why he should not be punished for committing contempt of this Court? Mian Abbas Ahmad, Advocate, has answered that he be given time for filing written reply. When asked how much time would he need, he said that at least a week's time may be given.
(4) He is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs,1,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of this Court for appearing in these proceedings.
(5) The proceedings are adjourned for one week, i.e,, till 12-4-1989, as requested. The office shall open separate file on original side and put up on 12-4-1989."
On 12-4-1989, the respondent/contemner put in appearance and submitted that he had received a written notice under the signatures of the Additional Registrar of this Court on 11-4-1989 and that the case may be adjourned to a date after Ramazan-ul-Mubarik. This prayer was declined and although the notice had already been served on the respondent/contemner by the office yet in order to inform him of the allegations once again I read to him my order, dated 5-4-1989, containing full substance of the charges (three counts) and asked him to make a reply. He made the following statement and also signed it in token of its correctness: "I am practising as an advocate of the High Court for, the last 10 years and I cannot even think of being disrespectful to Court or bring any Court in contempt. If any of my utterances is capable of being understood as amounting to contempt of Court then I may make it clear that I had no such intention of scandalizing this Court. Since the taking place of this instant incident I have not spoken about it at any forum. I am a member of Punjab Bar Council and attended a meeting of the Bar Council on 6-4-1989 and even in that meeting I had not mentioned about this incident. I cannot even think of committing contempt of this Court. If, however, my utterances are taken as calculated to contempt of Court then I am extremely sorry for that. I, therefore, request that this notice of contempt of Court issued to me may be discharged. I beg for forgiveness. I have received formal notice in the case from the Additional Registrar on 11-4-1989 at 11 a.m. If this statement of mine is treated to be not complete then I may be given time to file a written statement as well. I may also be given sufficient opportunity to defend myself."
' Despite availing 7 days time he did not file any written reply. However, in the larger interest of justice, I provided him more 7 days for filing written statement, if he so wished. On 19-4-1989, the respondent/contemner came with another application under section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act, hereinafter called the Act, praying that this case be sent to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court for taking further action- as provided in the said section. Notice of this petition was given to Additional Advocate-General for today and after hearing their arguments, I dismissed the petition by a separate detailed order with following observations:- "(2) Mian Abbas Ahmad, applicant/contemner, argues that because the remarks uttered by him (subject-matter of these proceedings) in his view (as put by him) related to the person of the Judge and not to the Court, therefore; this case falls under section 3 of the Act, consequently papers of these proceedings are required to be forwarded to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for further action. Learned Additional Advocate-General has replied that since the applicant/contemner uttered the contemptuous remarks in the view/face of this Court, therefore, his case is clearly covered under subsection (4) of section 7 and is excluded from the purview of section 8 of the Act.
(3) I have carefully considered the contentions of the applicant/ contemner as well as of the learned Additional Advocate-General and also perused all the relevant provisions of the Contempt of Court Act. Section 3 defines the "contempt of Court" and section 4 provides punishment for that offence. Section 5 confers jurisdiction to take cognizance of the said offence. Section 7 of the Act lays down the procedure to be followed by the Supreme Court and the High Court for trying the contemners while section 8 says that where the contempt of Court involves the personal scandalization of a Judge not being scandalization of the Court as a whole or of all the Judges of the Court," the Judge (who has been scandalized) shall forward the record of the case to the Chief Justice of the Court for setting up a Bench to hear that case. For convenience of reference the relevant portions of sections 7 and 8 of the Act are reproduced hereunder:- ' Procedure for Supreme Court and High Court: (1) to (3)....................................
(4) If contempt of Court is committed in the view or presence of the Court, the Court may cause, the offender to be detained in custody and, at any time before the rising of the Court on the same day, may proceed against him in the manner provided for in the preceding subsections.
' Explanation: Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (x) of the proviso to section 3, in any proceeding under this subsection, it shall not be open to the offender to take up a plea of truth of the statement for making which he is proceeded against.
(5) If any case referred to in subsection (4) cannot be finally disposed of on the same day, the Court shall order the release of the offender from custody either on bail or on his own bond.
8. Transfer of proceedings for reasons personal to the Judge:
(1) Where, in a case in which a Judge has made an order under subsection (1) of section 7, not being a case referred to in subsection (4) of that section, the alleged contempt of Court involves scandalization personal to such Judge and is not scandalization of the Court as a whole or of all the Judges of the Court, the Judge shall forward the record of the case and such comments, if any, as he deems fit to make, to the Chief Justice of the Court."
(4) A plain reading of these provisions would show that where contempt of Court (as defined in Article 204 of the Constitution of Pakistan and section 3 of the Act) is committed in the view or presence of the Court, then that Court can itself try the contemner irrespective of the fact whether the contempt committed by an offender in voled personal scandalization of the Judge or the scandalization of the Court by detaining the contemner in custody. Subsection (5) of section 7 says that if the case is such that it "cannot be disposed of on the same day" then the offender shall be released on bail which means that the offender would appear and face the trial on subsequent date notified by the Court and on ,such date or dates the proceedings would be completed and then the offender shall either be convicted or acquitted. I say so because it is nowhere stated in the Act that if the proceedings against the contemner (who committed contempt in presence of the Court) are not concluded the same day then the Court would cease to have jurisdiction to try him for the offence on subsequent dates. Further, I am of the considered view that section 7(4) deals with the cases of contempt committed in the view and presence of the Court while section 8 of the Act deals with cases where contempt is committed in the absence of Judge or the Court. The objection of the applicant contemner that since his remarks were directed to the person of the Judge, therefore, I cannot try him, is based on the fact that the word used in section 7(4) is "Court" and not "Judge". The argument is simply misconceived. I would pose a question here. Can there be a Court without a Judge? Obviously, the answer is, No, Therefore, Contempt of a "Judge" presiding over a Court would at the same time be contempt of the "Court" sand vice versa.
(5) As for the case in hand, the applicant uttered the contemptuous remarks at the face of the Judge during hearing of W.P. No,416/89 wherein he was representing the writ-petitioner, therefore, I am in no manner of doubt that the case of the applicant is squarely covered by subsection (4) of section 7 and not by section 8 of the Act. Consequently, this matter is not required to be sent to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court. This application is, therefore, dismissed."
2. Having held that this Court has jurisdiction to try the respondent/contemner I resumed hearing of this case and asked him to produce oral or written defence evidence whereupon he requested for adjournment saying that he wants to seek remedy against the order by which his application under section 8 of the Act has been dismissed. He wanted adjournment of the case till after Eid-ul- Fitr for engaging a counsel to defend him. The case had been adjourned earlier for three times at the request of the respondent/contemner but he did not feel the necessity of engaging any counsel, rather he himself conducted his case on all the hearings. On 12-4-1989 however, certain advocates attended the Court with him, therefore, I refused to adjourn the case. The respondent/contemner declined to supplement his statement, dated 12-4-1989. I told him that I would adjourn the proceedings for a few hours if he wanted to prepare the arguments whereupon he submitted that he has to say nothing more and that the case may be decided on the basis of the material available on record.
3. Now I shall examine, whether or not respondent/contemner is guilty of committing contempt of Court? As stated earlier, on the relevant day when request of the respondent/contemner for fixing W.P.No,416/89 for final hearing on actual date was declined by me, he adopted disrespectful attitude and then addressing me he remarked that I was favouring the respondents (in W.P.No,416/89) by not fixing the case for an actual date, as they belonged to Jamaat-e-Islami.
Despite cautioning by me, he persisted in his attitude and repeated the remarks and when I started dictating order for issuing him notice for committing contempt of Court he interrupted me. The respondent/ contemner has not denied these allegations in his statement made on 12-4-1989, i.e,, 7 days after the occurrence which obviously is his well thought over reply. Today (23-4-1989) when he argued his application under section 8 of the Act, his stance was that his 'remarks' were directed to the person of the Judge and not to the Court. So he has neither denied the incident nor the manner in which it took place or as set forth in the notice served on him. In other words, he admitted the 'utterances' made by him which are calculated to imputing partiality to this Court.
Partiality is another name of 'unjustness' and 'unfairness'. So the utterances in question made by the respondent contemner are in the nature of scandalization of the highest order and an invective of gravest type hurled on this Court. The law of contempt makes the integrity of Judges of the superior Courts immune from such attacks which is based on sound principle of public policy. The, respondent contemner is not a layman. On his own showing he his an Advocate of the High Court for the last 10 years and is member of Punjab Bar Council. He is, therefore, well aware of the practice and mannerism in law. Despite this, the respondent/contemner has repeatedly made the contemptuous and scandalous utterances which showed that he had done it intentionally. If authority of the Court is allowed to be trampled in this manner then no Judge of the superior Courts would be able to function freely and his authority would be always under the risk of being undermined and destroyed by disgruntled litigants. If this judicial system is to survive then its existence and dignity has to be safeguarded jealously against such reckless onslaughts and the offenders have to be dealt with with a strong arm.
4. It may be mentioned that although the respondent/contemner has asked for forgiveness in his statement, dated 12-4-1989 yet the reading of his whole statement does not show any repentance or remorse on his part. He does not seem to be appreciative of the fact that his act fell within the mischief of contempt of Court and that is why whenever he expressed his being sorry for it, 'he began the sentence with the word "if". For example- "If, however, my utterances are taken as calculated to contempt of Court then I am extremely sorry for that."
' He does not appear to have sincerely regretted for his doing. He also did not express his resolution not to repeat it in future, therefore, the apologetic part of his statement does not deserve to be accepted. Reference may be made to A.K.M.A.Awal's case (PLD 1964 SC 256)
5. For what has been stated above, the respondent/contemner is hereby held guilty of contempt of Court (3 counts). He is not entitled to any leniency in the award of sentence. He richly deserves deterrent punishment and, therefore, while convicting hifn on all the three counts as mentioned in pare 3 of the judgment, Ihereby sentence him to 6 months' simple imprisonment on each count and to pay a fine of Rs,5,000 on each count or in default of payment of fine to undergo further 3 months' simple imprisonment on each count.
Contemner sentenced.