1. HAZIQUL KHAIRI, J.---Contemner Nazir Hussain Abbasi, Inspector of Police was charged vide notice, dated 21-1-1992 for offence under sections 3 and 4 of Contempt of Court Act punishable under section 4 thereof. Charge was read over and explained to the contemner who pleaded guilty to the charge and stated that he threw himself at the merecy of the Court and offered unconditional apology.
2. These contempt proceedings arose out of an application under section 491 Cr.P.C. Filed by one Ali Hassan praying for issuance of Rule Nisi for production of Mst. Arbab through SHO Ghotki. On 28-11- 1990 Rule Nisi was ordered to be issued to C.I.A. Inspector Sukkur who is the contemner herein for production of the said detenu on 10-12-1990 on which date order for fresh Rule Nisi was made for 19-12-1990 with direction to him to be present in the Court on the said date and to explain as to why Rule Nisi had not been executed and why intimation was not sent to this Court. On 19-12-1990, neither any report was received from the contemner nor was he present in the Court. Again order for issuance of fresh Rule Nisi was issued to the said Inspector C.I.A. Sukkur for production of the detenu on 10-1-1991 but the same remained unexecuted. On this date one SIP Nizamuddin made appearance and stated that the contemner had gone to Karachi in connection with treatment of his wife. Direction was however given to the contemner through SIP Nizamuddin to attend the Court on the next date viz 24-1-1991, alongwith his reply to the show-cause notice. On this date the contemner neither made appearance nor filed his reply to show-cause notice. Accordingly it was further ordered that a show-cause notice be issued to him as to why he should not be prosecuted and convicted under section 174, P.P.C. On the adjourned date viz. 31-1-1991, the contemner remained absent as the notice could not be served upon him. It was reported by S.I.P. Muhammad Hashim who was present in the Court that day that the contemner was placed under suspension. It may be noted here that our learned brothers ---Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, J and Salahuddin Mirza, J observed on this date that the contemner was deliberately avoiding to appear in Court and therefore, bailable warrants in sum of Rs.10,000 be issued against him which could not be served upon him on the next date viz. 14-2-1991 when fresh bailable warrants were ordered to be issued for 27-2-1991. On this date again notice was ordered to be issued to the contemner. On 23-4-1991 when the matter was next fixed in the Court our learned brothers Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo, J and one of us (Muhammad Aslam Arain, J.), observed that "the contemner was avoiding the process of the Court and non-bailable warrants be issued against him through S.S.P. Sukkur". On the next dates i.e. 8-5- 1991 and 22-5-1991 the contemner could not be served. He, however, made appearance on 20 11- 1991 on which date the order for issuance of non-bailable warrants was recalled but he was required to show cause as to why he should not be tried and convicted under sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Court Act (XLIV of 1976) for disobeying the orders of the Court, dated 10-1-1991, 24- 1-1991, 27-2-1991, 23-4-1991 and 8-5-1991. On the next date i.e. 9-12-1991 the contemner made appearance in person and filed his reply. It was observed by our learned brothers, Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo, J and Salahuddin Mirza, J on the said date that they were not satisfied with the reply, of the contemner and therefore he will be tried for offence under section 3 of Contempt of Court Act punishable under section 4 of the said Act. It was ordered that a charge shall be framed against him at.2-30 p.m. However when the matter was taken up at 2-30 p.m. The contemner was called absent. The learned Judges of this Court therefore ordered for issuance of non-bailable warrant against him through SSP Sukkur. It was further ordered that another notice be sent to the contemner to show cause as to why he defied the order of this Court by remaining absent at 2-30 p.m. That day. When the matter came up on the adjourned date i.e. 12-12-1991, as per record the contemner was again called absent and was reported to have been admitted in Civil Hospital.
3. Fresh non-bailable warrants were ordered to be issued against him through S.S.P., Sukkur. On the next date i.e. 24-12-1991, Mr. Samiullah Qureshi Advocate made appearance on behalf of the contemner and filed his affidavit supported by a medical certificate that the contemner was admitted in Civil Hospital, Larkana from 19-12-1991 to 23-12-1991 and that he had been advised to take rest till 31-12-1991. In the circumstances of the case the process was suspended till 31-12-1991 and the matter was adjourned to 13-1-1992 for fresh orders. On this date, Mr. Imdad Ali Awan Advocate undertook to file power on behalf of the contemner who was also present in the Court and requested for adjournment: which was granted. On the next date i.e. 21-1-1992, the said charge was read over and explained to the contemner who pleaded guilty to the charge and offered unconditional apology to the Court.
4. From the facts, enumerated above we are of the opinion that the contemner had made deliberate, wilful and flagrant disobedience of the orders of the Court from time to time. We would refrain from taking notice of his reply to show cause dated 26-11-1991 issued by the Court, which in view of admission of his guilt fades into insignificance. In a situation such as this it will be in the public interest that the honour of the Court be vindicated and even though an unqualified apology is offered by the contemner, it may not be accepted by the Court as a matter of course without applying its mind. We are accordingly of the view that the conduct of the contemner was such that if he goes unpunished public confidence in Courts would likely to be impaired and the ends of justice would likely to be obstructed. However, in view of the fact that immediately on being charged, the contemner had admitted his guilt, we are inclined to take a lenient view and convict and sentence him to pay a fine in the sum of Rs.1,000 only and in default to undergo S.I. For two weeks.
5. N.H.Q./A-1219/K