' This suo motu contempt proceedings arose in the following circumstances:-- ' One Ch. Ghulam Shakeel, a Tea Stall-holder, inside the Adda of Farrukh Flying Coach, Railway Station, Lahore, filed a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, for a direction that the S.H.O. Police Station Naulakha, Lahore, be directed not to harass him and his passenger customers during the fasting hours illegally and without jurisdiction, in that, prohibition of serving eatables in certain public places does not apply to a restaurant, canteen, stall, or wheel barrow of the holder of a vending contract within the premises of a railway station or in a train or a restaurant or canteen within the premises of an airport, seaport or bus- stand or in an aircraft as envisaged by clause (b) of section 5 of the Ehtram-e-Ramzan Ordinance No,XXIII of 19R1, as amended. In consequence, this Court by interim order, dated 22-4-1989 called Mr. Zaeem-ul-Farooq Malik, the learned Assistant Advocate-General to assist the Court at motion stage and also summoned the S.H.O. For 23-4-1989. The writ petition has since been disposed of as having borne fruit by a separate order of even date.
2. The learned Assistant Advocate-General informed the Court this morning that the said S.H.O.
Stated to him in a taunting manner that, is he concerned with the law and order situation or to pursue the writ petition in the High Court in pursuance of the order passed by this Court? The S.H.O.
Allegedly showed disrespect to this Court by making the remarks:- ' Law and order situation ' In consequence, the , who was present in the Court in connection with the hearing of the said writ petition was called upon to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt, for showing disrespect to this Court by using the aforesaid remarks. The S.H.O. Disputed the statement made by the learned Assistant Advocate-General as incorrect and stated that he be allowed to produce the evidence in support of his defence.
3. The learned Assistant Advocate-General reiterated that the aforesaid remarks were made by the S.H.O. Mr. Farooq Bedar, the learned Additional Advocate-General, also deposed that the alleged incident was reported to him by the learned Assktant Advocate-General, whereupon the S.H.O. Told him that he was more concerned about the law and order situation rather than attending the Court.
4. Mr. Wilayat Hussain Shah, Inspector/S.H.O. Gave his own statement and also produced Mr. Shamim Ahmad Zaidi, Reader of this Court in defence. It will be useful to reproduce his statement which reads thus:-- "Mr. Zaeem-ul-Farooq Malik, learned Assistant Advocate-General, has made incorrect statement before the Court. I never uttered the words allegedly attributed to me. The statement made by the learned Assistant Advocate-General appears to be based on some misunderstanding.
' I was never contacted by the learned Assistant Advocate-General on telephone yesterday, in that, I was on duty at Islamia College, Railway Road, Lahore, from 7-00 a.m. To 2-00 p.m. I have made entry in the Roznamcha of Police Station Naulakha on 22-4-1989 to this effect. I also tender apology in the following words:-{{URDU TEXT}} ' I will produce in defence the Reader of this Court to whom I reported the incident in the morning?
5. Mr. Shamim Ahmad Zaidi, Reader of this Court made the following statement:-- ' Law and order situation today in the Court Room. He said that Mr. Zaeem-ul-Farooq Malik, the learned Assistant Advocate-General, misbehaved with him in the morning. I told him that whatever you want to say, you should say in the Court when the case is called out."
6. It will be seen that there is assertion on one side and denial on the other. Therefore, a factual inquiry was conducted into the matter by giving adequate opportunity to the complainant as well as the contemnor in respect of the offending remarks stated to have been made by the S.H.O., as quoted above. I have no reason to disbelieve the statement of the learned Assistant Advocate- General, who has no reason to falsely involve the S.H.O. The remarks quoted above by the S.H.O.
Tend to bring the authority of this Court and the administration of law into disrespect, ridicule and contempt within the purview of section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976), and Article 204 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
7. It goes without saying that a duty rests on all citizens and particularly, the law enforcing agencies to show due respect to the superior Courts of this country. It is regretted to point out that the respondent S.H.O. Is not fully aware of his duty in this behalf. The attitude adopted by him in the Court was also not correct. Instead of tendering unconditional and unqualified apology to the Court, he reiterated a stand that the remarks attributed to him by the learned Assistant Advocate- General were incorrect. He merely tendered apology to the Assistant Advocate-General and did not submit any unqualified apology to the Court. He did not seriously express any regrets and begged to be pardoned, nor desired to submit the apology to the Court in writing or to withdraw the objectionable words quoted above. In the circumstances, the apology cannot be accepted.
The question of proceeding for contempt of Court is entirely within the discretion of the Court to proceed or not to proceed against the contemnor. This is, however, a fit case where the discretion should be exercised against the respondent in view of his incorrect attitude in this Court as well during the course of hearings. The respondent begged to be pardoned only after the conclusion of the case when the judgment was reserved for decision in the later part of the day. The pardon tendered by the respondent S.H.O. In this fashion cannot be accepted. However, painful it may be, the Court must punish those who do anything which is intended to or tends to bring the Court into hatred, ridicule or contempt, otherwise, it will erode public confidence in the administration of justice which must be zealously guarded. In Hakam Qureshi, President, District Bar Association, Lahore and 2 others v. The Judges of the Lahore High Court and another PLD 1976 SC 713, it was held that 'the object of law of contempt of Court is not to idolize the Courts as mere objects of admiration or awesome reverence: rather it points out the place of Courts in the broad field of Government. Indeed for internal security of the State, the Courts of justice are its last bulwark. This explains why law so jealously guards the dignity of Courts and does not countenance the doing of anything calculated to shake public confidence in them'.
8. For all the foregoing reasons, Walayat Hussain Shah, Inspector/S.H.O. Police Station Naulakha, Lahore, has clearly committed the contempt of this Court, for which he must be convicted. He has not shown any remorse for his contemptuous conduct. Be that as it may, this is his first offence of contempt. Accordingly, taking a lenient view of the matter about the quantum of sentence I sentence him till the rising of the Court with a fine of Rs,100, or in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a term extending to two days.
9. A copy of this order be also sent to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, and the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Punjab, Lahore.
Contemnor sentenced.