The facts leading to these proceedings in contempt, briefly, are that in Criminal Miscellaneous No, 19-H of 1989/BWP, this Court had deputed Bailiff to recover Rasool Bakhsh from the alleged illegal custody of S.H.O., P.S. Bhong and produce him before Court on 16-1-1989. On 16-1-1989, Zahoor Hussain Bailiff reported that Santri present at the main gate of the police station and NaibMoharrir as well had not allowed him to enter the police station and recover the alleged detenu, although he had disclosed his identity to them. So much so, they had refused to open the main gate of the police station. On this I directed S.P., Rahimyar Khan to depute D.S.P. To recover Rasool Bakhsh, the alleged detenu from the custody of police officials posted at the Police Station Bhong and produce him before this Court on 17-1-1989. I also summoned S.H.O., P.S. Bhong for that date. On 17-1-1989, the D.S.P. Appeared before me. He stated that he could not find Rasool Bakhsh in the police station when he conducted raid on 16-1-1989 at 2-40 a.m. On this I ordered the D.S.P. To recover Rasool Bakhsh from wherever he may be found and produce him before this Court on 21-1-1989. On 17-1- 1989 Irshad Ghulab, S.H.O., P.S. Bhong stated before the Court that when the Bailiff reached the police station, Muhammad Rafiq Naib-Moharrir, Muhammad Iqbal and Shaukat Ali, Constables were on duty. So, I summoned them for today. The D.S.P. Has produced Rasool Bakhsh, the alleged detenu before this Court today. I recorded his statement in the main petition i,e, Criminal Miscellaneous No,19-H of 1989/BWP. Muhammad Iqbal, Constable stated that when the bailiff reached the police station and asked Santri to open the gate, he was not on duty although he was very much present in the police station. Muhammad Rafiq stated that he was working as Naib- Moharrir and Shaukat All was Santri at the main gate. Muhammad Rafiq and Shaukat All both stated that although Zahoor Hussain, Bailiff had asked them to open the gate to enable him to recover the alleged detenu in execution of the order of this Court, yet they had not opened the gate as they were not satisfied with regard to his identity. I was not satisfied with their explanation. It appeared to me that there were sufficient grounds for believing that Muhammad Rafiq, Naib- Moharrir, Shaukat All and Muhammad Iqbal, F.Cs. Had committed contempt of Court and it was necessary in the interest of effective administration of justice to proceed against them. I made an order in writing to that effect setting forth the substance of the charge against them. Since they were present in the Court, I informed them of the ground on which they had been -Charged with contempt of Court. I called upon them to show cause why they should not be punished. On this Shaukat Ali and Muhammad Rafiq accused declined to contest the charge. They simply tendered unqualified apology. While tendering unqualified apology Muhammad Iqbal stated that he was merely present in the police station at the eventful time and had neither disregarded the order of this Court nor had obstructed the Bailiff in discharge of his duties.
2. Shaukat All and Muhammad Rafiq accused have not contested the charge against them.
Instead they have tendered unqualified apology. It is, by now, well-settled that in contempt cases tender of unqualified apology by an accused person tantamounts to an admission of the charge against him. So, there remains no room for any doubt that Shaukat Ali and Muhammad Rafiq had not only disregarded the order, dated 15-1-1989 of this Court but had also obstructed the process of law and frustrated the order of this Court for the recovery of Rasool Bakhsh detenu. They are thus guilty of an offence punishable under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976. No overt act has been assigned to Muhammad Iqbal accused. He was merely present in the police station when the Bailiff reached there to execute the order, so he is discharged.
3. It is not less well-recognized that unqualified apology is not a complete defence to the charge of Contempt of Court and whenever indulgence is shown by the superior Courts that is only by way of grace and concession. The contemner cannot claim acquittal or discharge of notice as a matter of right on the strength of unqualified apology. The unqualified apology does not ipso facto purge the offence. In the beginning, Shaukat Ali and Muhammad Rafiq accused had attempted at justification. It was after the final show-cause notice 'as to why they had tendered unqualified apology'. So the apology tendered by them can hardly be accepted as sufficient amends for their conduct. In the interest of effective administration of justice, they have to be punished.
4. This brings me to the question of sentence. It is a case of naked and worst type of contempt of Court. The accused have committed unprecedented type of contempt of Court. They by not allowing the Bailiff of this Court to enter police station and recover the alleged detenu in execution of the order of this Court had frustrated the order of this Court. The conduct of the accused was opposing and despising of the authority of this Court. The apology tendered by an accused person may satisfy less serious form of contempt but not in serious and deliberate cases like present one.
The purpose of contempt proceedings is not to wreak vengeance but to vindicate the honour of this Court so as to keep public confidence in superior Courts undiminished and to keep the fountain of justice free from pollution and obstruction. Since the accused had made deliberate attempts to frustrate the order of this Court, therefore, they do not deserve leniency. Furthermore, on several occasions, the High Court has expressed its concern over the alarming tendency on the part of police officials to flout the orders of the Courts which they are legally bound to implement and obey. When a contempt notice is given to the police officials, they tender unqualified apology and beg for mercy to save their skins. On the other hand, the High Court on assumption and belief that in contempt matter it is better to forgive than to punish a mercy seeker, either discharges notice or awards nominal punishment. It is really unfortunate that indulgence thus shown by the High Court has been misunderstood and misused. There are instances that the police officials after having been discharged or leniently dealt with have repeated contempt of Court. For the effective administration of justice, it is necessary that serious view of the matter should be taken and no leniency should be shown to the condemners. Shaukat All and Muhammad Rafiq accused are, therefore, sentenced to 6 months' S.I. And a fine of Rs,5,000 each or in default thereof one month's S.I. Each, leaving it for Superintendent of Police, Rahimyar Khan to see whether or not the condemners can now be retained in service any more, in view of their conviction. Copy of this judgment shall be sent to S.P. Rahimyar Khan, for action he deems fit. .