1. ' The facts leading to these proceedings in contempt briefly are that on 28-8-1988 in Writ Petition No, 753 of 1988 filed by Mst. Parveen Bibi against S.H.O., P.S. Yazman for direction to register case, this Court passed the following order:- "Grievance of the petitioner is that the S.H.O. Was approached but he refused to register the case.
2. Petitioner may now approach the S.H.O. With a written application setting forth all the allegations therein and he shall proceed in accordence with law. With this observation, writ petition is disposed of in limine."
3. On 10-9-1985 Mst. Parveen Bibi petitioner filed petition under sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 against S.H.O. Police Station Yazman alleging that on 29-8-1988 when she approached the S.H.O. And presented order of this Court dated 28-8-1988, alongwith written application he not only threw both the documents in the air but also uttered insultive and derogatory words against the High Court. The S.H.O. Was summoned by this Court for 24-9-1988.
4. However, Muhammad Sharif A.S.I. Appeared in the Court and stated that the F.I.R. Had already been registered by Muhammad Arif A.S.I. On this the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he was Muhammad Arif A.S.I., who had committed Contempt of Court and not Muhammad Sharif A.S.I. So notice was issued against Muhammad Arif to show cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him. Muhammad Arif appeared in the Court. He denied the allegations. So the petitioner was called upon to prove the allegations. She appeared as P.W.1 and produced Abdul Rashid P.W.2 and Munir Ahmad P.W.3. She stated that on 29-8-1988, she alongwith her father Abdul Rashid and Munir Ahmad P.W. Had approached Muhammad Arif, A.S.I. P.S. Yazman. She presented order of the High Court to Muhammad Arif A.S.I. He threw away order of the Court saying that: {{URDU TEXT}} ' Abdul Rashid and Munir Ahmad P.Ws. Have fully supported her. They were cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respondent but nothing advantageous to the defence could be elicited. To rebut this evidence Muhammad Arif respondent appeared as witness and also produced 5 witnesses namely Abdul Aziz R.W.1, Muhammad Ali, R.W.2, Rashid Ahmad R.W.3 and Muhammad Muslim R.W.4. The R.Ws. Stated that on 29-8-1988 Mst. Parveen Bibi had not gone to the Police Station Yazman and had remained in her Chak where efforts were being made to effect compromise between Altaf and Abdul Rashid, father of the petitioner. Abdul Aziz R.W.1 staed that one Altaf had lodged a case under section 325, P.P.C. Against Muhammad Idrees, brother of the petitioner as counter-blast. Mst. Waziran Bibi suffered injuries by friendly hands and tried to involve her enemies. The police, however, cancelled the case. Muhammad Ali also stated that the allegations against Muhammad Arif respondent were false. Bashir Ahmad was Councillor of the Chak. He stated that Mst. Parveen Bibi had levelled allegations of assault to outrage her modesty against Muhammad Altaf who, also lodged a case against the brother of the petitioner, so she wanted to get case registered against Muhammad Altaf. In his statement on oath Muhammad Arif respondent denied allegations. He stated that since he had arrested Abdul Rashid and Asghar, father and paternal-uncle of the petitioner respectively, so she was annoyed. He further stated that he had arrested Muhammad Idrees and Tariq, real brothers of the petitioner in case under section 325, P.P.C. He also stated that mother of the petitioner had lodged a report under section 325, P.P.C.
5. Against Muhammad Altaf which was found false. He stated that on 29-8-1989, he was present in the Court of Sessions, Bahawalpur and as such could not have used any loose words against the High Court in Police Station Yazman.
2. Supporting the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt to the respondent. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondent aruged that the witnesses produced by Mst. Parveen were interested, that the respondent was not present in the police station on 29-8-1988 and in fact gone to Bahawalpur to attend the Court of Sessions and that since the petitioner had arrested the brother of the petitioner in a criminal case, therefore, she has falsely involved him in the present case.
3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties with care. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. I find that in view of the order, dated 28-8-1988 reproduced above, the presence of the petitioner alongwith copy of the order of the High Court and written application, was quite natural. Abdul Rashid being father of the petitioner, his accompanying her to the police station to lodge report also runs parallel to the natural probabilities. Munir Ahmad P.W.3 is an independent witness. He has no enmity, whatsoever, against the respondent. The three P.Ws. Have successfully faced the test of cross-examination. The statements made by them do not suffer from material contradiction/major discrepancies or dishonest improvements. I do not see any reason to disbelieve them. The respondent has not been able to rebut prosecution evidence. Yazman is hardly at a distance of 20 miles from Bahawalpur.
6. The Court hours in the month of August were from 7-30 a.m. To 2-30 p.m., so he could easily be present at the police station at 4-00 p.m. i,e, the time of occurrence. There is nothing in evidence to show that the P.Ws. Had remained with Mst. Parveen throughout the day on 29-8-1988, therefore, their statements that she had not visited the Police Station Yazman on that date carries no importance. For all these reasons, I am convinced that Muhammad Arif respondent had not only disobeyed and disregarded the order of this Court, dated 28-8-1988 but had also used contemptuous language against this Court punishable under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976.
4. This brings me to the question of sentence. The respondent has not tendered unqualified apology at any stage, so he is sentenced to one month S.I. And a fine of Rs,5,000, in default thereof further S.I. For 7 days.
7. ' Before parting with the judgment, I feel constrained to express my deep concern over flagrant disregard being demonstrated by the police officials when orders of this Court directing them to register a case or not to harass the petitioners are produced before them. People appearing before this Court generally complain that the police officials neither accept these orders in good taste nor show due respect and regard for the Court. They rather become intemperate in the presence of parties at the Police Station and exhibit isolent behaviour. Such conduct is indeed a display of gross indiscipline and the Administration should take serious notice of it. Rule 14.2 of the Police Rules, 1934, inter alia, lays down the code of conduct for all officers (irrespective of the rank) of the police force as under:- "Every Police Officer entering a Court of laws in Uniform, while such Court is in session, shall salute the Court, irrespective of the rank or status of the Judicial Officer presiding in such a Court for the time being."
8. ' In case of non-compliance, he will render himself liable to prosecution and punishment under section 29 of Police Act and to dismissal from service under the relevant Efficiency and Discipline Rules. The spirit of this rule is to make the police force conscious of the degree of respect and regard that they owe to the Courts irrespective of the status of the Judicial Officer. It is in the context a matter of stern regret that the Police officials should grow so rude as to show disregard for the orders of this Court.
9. ' For effective administration of justice, therefore, it is not only the duty of the Court to proceed against such offenders but the Administration should also take cognizance of this state of affairs with reference to the relevant provisions of the Police Act. Section 23 of the Police Act lays down inter alia as under:- "It shall be the duty of every Police Officer promptly to obey and execute all orders and warrants lawfully issued to him by any competent authority."
10. ' So far as the authority of the Courts is concerned the observations made by the Supreme Court in a case reported as PLD 1961 SC 237 at page 260 are as under:- "The dignity and authority of Courts has a link with the supremacy and the majesty of law and any conduct which is calculated to diminish that dignity or authority is a criminal contempt which a Court is under duty to punish."
11. Apart from the punishment to be awarded by the Courts, the Administration should also take deterrent disciplinary action against such officials who not only fail to obey the orders of the Court promptly but are guilty of violation of the code of conduct prescribed for them.
12. ' A copy of this order will be sent to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore for necessary action. .