1. SH. RIAZ AHMAD, J.--- This appeal is directed against the order dated 17th of December, 1990, delivered by our learned brother Mr. Justice Ihsanul Haq Chaudhry who: found the appellants guilty for having committed the .Contempt of Court and the appellants had been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of four months each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000 each or in default thereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for one' month.
2. The circumstances, in which the appellants, had committed the contempt of Court are that one Riaz Ahmad filed an application bringing into the notice of the Court that Mst. Yasmeen Akhtar and others were being illegally detained by the appellants. On 29-1-1990, the Court deputed a bailiff to recover and produce the alleged detenues. Accordingly, the bailiff reached the concerned police station and found that Mst. Yasmeen Akhtar was sitting in the compound alongwith a lady constable while other detenu Muhammad Irshad was found in the lock-up. The bailiff checked the Roznamcha but there was no entry as to the arrest of these detenus. Subsequently thereto, Noor Muhammad S.I. Also reached the police station and. Thus they were directed by the bailiff to produce the detenus in Court and to appear there Our learned brother, however, found that both the appellants had acted illegally and thus, a notice was issued to them to show cause as to why action should not be taken against them for having unlawfully detained the aforesaid detenus. Both the appellants submitted their written explanation.
3. Appellant Maqsood Ahmad stated that on 29-1-1990, Mst. Yasmeen Akhtar and her co-accused were arrested and before their arrest could be recorded in the daily diary, the bailiff reached and since he was not available, therefore, on the receipt of the information as to the arrival of the bailiff, he came to the police station. It was asserted that both the detenus are required in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.15 of 1990 and the case was being investigated into by Noor Muhammad Bhatti, Sub-Inspector/Additional S.H.O. Thus, it was prayed that the explanation be accepted and the notice be discharged.
4. Similar was the statement of other appellant Noor Ahmad Bhatti and it was also asserted that physical remand of Mst. Yasmeen Akhtar had been obtained from a Magistrate and the arrest had also been shown in the Zimni but could not be recorded in the daily diary. They also referred to an entry in the daily diary, according to which, Lady Constable Jameela was summoned from police lines to guard Mst. Yasmeen Akhtar.
5. After a careful perusal of the defence taken up by the appellant, our learned brother Mr. Justice Ihsanul Haq Chaudhry sent for the original Roznamcha which contained entry No.51 'as to the despatch of Jameela Lady Constable. Our learned brother observed that the entry was fabricated and forged and thus with a view to verify and compare it, a copy of the daily diary which was sent to the D.S.P. Was summoned. The Additional Advocate General produced a copy of the entry No.51 and the daily diary sent to the D.S.P. Which clearly reveals that the entry No.51 as despatched to the D.S.P. Was different than the one shown in the Roznamcha. In these circumstances, the learned Judge took a stern view of the situation.
6. At this stage, both the appellants had thrown themselves at the mercy of the Court and sought apology and also confessed their guilt. Our learned brother; however, refused to accept their apology and proceeded to punish them under the contempt of Court and also issued a direction for the registration of a case against them for illegally detaining Mst. Yasmeen Akhtar and Muhammad Irshad.
7. In course of hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants had nothing to argue but to pray for mercy. After having heard the learned counsel at length and considering that the criminal case has also been registered against the appellants; we feel that the, ends of justice would be met, if the conviction of the appellants is confined to the sentence already undergone by them. We order accordingly. However, the sentence of fine is maintained. On payment of fine, they shall be released forthwith if not required to lie detained in any other case With these observations, this appeal is dismissed.