1. ' Appellant Syedul Mukhtiar Siddiqui who is an Advocate, has filed this appeal in which he has challenged his conviction and sentence till the rising of the Court by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot on 15-1-1987 for intentionally offering insult and causing interruption in the judicial proceedings as contemplated under section 228, P.P.C.
2. ' Record indicates that in the above-mentioned Court was pending criminal revision No,23 of 1987 (Najeeb Ahmed v. State) in which appellant as an Advocate filed application duly signed by him under section 438(2), Cr.P.C. Requesting for making a reference to the High Court on the grounds mentioned therein imputing incompetence to the said Court. This application was filed on 5-1-1987 on which the Court ordered that the Advocate may be heard first to justify allegations made in the said application. Grounds in the application are reproduced as under:- "(1) That the revision proceedings involved grave and most complicated questions of law and material facts for which the most appropriate forum is the High Court to adjudicate.
(2) That the learned Jude deliberately avoided to consider the application under section 94 on merits as well as the authorities cited at Bar i,e, 1972 PCr.LJ 1332, 1972 PCr.LJ 604 and 1971 PCr.LJ 985 and PLD 1977 SC 475 for obvious reasons which operated to lapse the confidence of the petitioner.
(3) That the mode of the disposal of the application moved under section 94, was perverse, arbitrary and repugnant to the norms of justice, which warrants a justification of the reference to the High Court.
(4) That the wavering attitude of hesitancy and incompetency demonstrated by the Court in the treatment of the revision petition further justify the reference to the higher forum of High Court."
3. ' It is stated in the order which is impugned in this appeal that on 15-1-1987 at 12-30 p.m. While judicial proceedings were in progress, appellant appeared in the Court and arrogantly interrupted the proceedings and asked the learned Judge as to what happened to his application under section 438(2), Cr.P. C. Moved by him. He was asked by the Court to justify the contemptuous allegations made against the Court in that application and remarks used by him. In reply the appellant without exhibiting any regard for the Court uttered in harsh words "Definitely you are an incompetent Judge". He uttered these words while sitting in the Court room. When informed by the Court that it was contempt of Court, he reiterated that he sticks to his words and remarks and contents of his application which was drafted by him and was signed by him. This was so stated in presence of members of the Bar who were sitting in the Court. In such circumstances the Court ordered arrest of appellant but still appellant remained seated, hence the Court was compelled to order police to take appellant in custody and put hand-cuffs on him because behaviour of the appellant had become unruly and uncontrollable. Gist of the charge is that appellant intentionally offered insult and caused interruption during judicial proceedings and uttered words addressed to the Presiding Officer to the effect that he is definitely incompetent Judge. After the charge was read over and explained, the appellant made admission in the open Court and tendered unconditional apology in writing in presence of other members of the Bar who were sitting in the Court. The written apology is also signed by the members of the Bar. The Court took lenient view on account of unqualified apology, repentance and maintenance of good relations between Bar and Bench and sentenced him till rising of the Court.
4. ' During the hearing in the High Court when it was enquired from the appellant whether he has filed appeal or revision because in the memorandum of appeal, apparently filed by him both sections 486 and 435, Cr.P.C. Are quoted, he submitted that he has been convicted and sentenced not by judgment but by order, hence he has used both sections with the intention that if the appeal is found to be not maintainable then it could be treated as revision. There is no dispute about the fact that appellant is convicted and sentenced by way of an order which is impugned in this appeal.
5. Conviction is for offence under section 228, P.P.C. For which procedure is laid down in section 480, Cr.P. C. Against such conviction and sentence appeal is provided under section 486, Cr.P.C. In this context perusal of the sections mentioned above shows that mention is made therein about award of sentence and nowhere requirement is specified that such sentence should be by order or by judgment. In any case the question whether it should be judgment or order is clearly procedural in nature because intention is obvious that appellant has been convicted and sentenced for a particular offence as is mentioned in the impugned order.
6. ' Another contention raised by the appellant is that procedure laid down in section 480, Cr.P.C. Was not followed. He has relied upon some reported cases which do not support him as they are distinguishable. Before I go into the cases cited by appellant, I would like to point out that perusal of section 228, P.P. C. And section 480, Cr.P.C. Clearly shows that if intentional insult is made or interruption is caused to public servant sitting in judicial proceedings in view of or presence of the Court, then such offender can be detained in custody and punished by that Court. Requirement is that insult or interruption is within the view and in presence of that Court. First case cited by appellant is that of Iqbal Hasan Kazi v. State 1969 PCr.LJ 627. This case does not apply to the facts of the instant case for the reason that in the reported case appellant had shouted outside the Court and there was nothing on the record to suggest that it was in presence or within the view of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Second case cited is of Ghulam Ghose v. State PLD 1976 Peshawar 132. This case is distinguishable for the reason that in this case Reader of the Civil Judge was insulted and impugned order was silent as to the stage of proceedings in which the accused had misbehaved. It was observed that the order of conviction under section 228, P.P.C. Is appealable under section 486, therefore, it would be necessary to mention all the relevant facts leading to the conclusion for the benefit of the appellate Court. In the case of Jatta Mal v. Emperor reported in AIR 1928 Lah. 357(1) it was observed that in the case of offence under section 228, P.P. C.
7. The record must show the nature and stage of judicial proceedings in which the Court was interrupted or insulted.
8. In the instant case impugned order in a very graphic manner states all the relevant facts including filing of application under section 439(2) Cr.P.C. With grounds mentioned therein for the purpose of making reference to the High Court and hearing of that application was on same day when further interruption was caused by the appellant and insult offered to the Court. This shows that every thing is mentioned in detail including the stage of the proceedings and how insult was offered and interruption was made and what were the words used. In such circumstances contention of the appellant has no force that proper procedure as laid down under section 480, Cr.P. C. Is not followed. Other contentions raised by the appellant are that his statement was not recorded as contemplated under section 481, Cr.P. C., complaint was not filed under section 195, Cr.P. C., charge was not framed, signature of appellant was not taken and no witness was examined. These objections have no force and are without substance for the reason that appellant himself after the charge was framed against him tendered unqualified apology in writing which is signed by him and also signed by other members of the Bar who were present in the Court room at the relevant time. This statement is also signed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhkot in whose presence it was made. One other point is that in a contempt case tender of unqualified apology can be considered as equivalent to plea of guilt. Section 412, Cr.P.C, envisages that if a person has pleaded guilty and on that plea he is convicted by the Court, then in such case appeal against such conviction and sentence is not competent except to the extent of legality of the sentence. Same principle can apply to the instant case in which the sentence was till the rising of the Court.
9. ' For the facts and reasons stated above I am of the view that no exception can be taken to the impugned order for the reason that it very clearly appears from the record that appellant has used derogatory language imputing incompetence to the Court in his application under section 438(2), Cr.P. C. And then misbehaved in the Court by intentionally offering insult and causing interruption in judicial proceedings. Such behaviour corning from an Advocate who is officer of the Court and as such part of the Court cannot be approved.
10. ' I, therefore, uphold the impugned order and dismiss the appeal.