' JUSTICE AJMAL MIAN (CHAIRMAN)---This is an appeal against the order dated 30-10-199.1 passed by the learned Special Judge, Speedy Trials Court-II, Lahore, in Case No,354 of 1991, convicting the appellant under section 12 of the Special Courts for Speedy Trials Ordinance, 1991 (Ordinance XXV of 1991), hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance, for non-appearance as a witness on 28-10-1991 after receiving the process from the Court and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for one month.
2. The brief facts are that during the trial of a case by the learned Special Judge, the appellant was summoned as a prosecution witness for appearance on the above date but in spite of service of summons, he did not appear on the above date. Consequently, warrants of arrest were issued which were executed. When he appeared before the Court, he admitted his signature on the summons but stated that due to rush of departmental work, sickness of his sister and because of the fact that he had to bring his children from school, he was unable to attend the Court on the above date. The above explanation was found unsatisfactory by the learned Special Judge. In consequence thereof, it was held that the appellant contravened section 12 of the Ordinance by disobeying the process of the Court. The appellant was, accordingly, convicted and sentenced as above. The appellant has, therefore, filed the present appeal.
3. In support of the above appeal, Mr. Abdul Aziz Qureshi, learned counsel for the appellant, has urged that the appellant had no intention to disobey the order of the learned Special Judge but had not realized the consequences for non-appearance and thought that the above reasons advanced by him were good reasons for non-attendance. He has further submitted that the appellant has already been punished as in pursuance of warrants of arrest, he was arrested and, therefore, this Court may take a lenient view keeping in view that the appellant is a young man working in a Government Department having family to support and if the above sentence is maintained, he may lose his job. In support of his above submission, he has relied upon the case of The State v. Muhammad Ashraf Zahid PLD 1975 Lah. 635, wherein Muhammad Afzal Zullah, J. (as his Lordship then was), while dealing with the question of contempt under Article 204 of the Constitution read with Contempt of Courts Act, 1926, also referred to section -4 of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960 (XLV of 1960), and observed as follows:- "There is nothing in the Ordinance to show that a person, who is accused of contempt of Court and is covincted would not be entitled to seek benefit under the provisions thereof. In other words, when a person is convicted of Contempt of Court and, before or after the award of punishment, if the convict satisfies the Court that an order of conditional discharge under section 4 would be appropriate and just in the circumstances of the case, there is no limitation on the power of the High Court contained either in Article 204 of the Constitution or in the Contempt of Courts Act or in the Ordinance itself with regard to its passing such an order. It is not necessary to repeat over again all the arguments of the learned Advocate-General in this behalf. I entirely agree with him that such an order is not only legally permissible but also proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
4. We are in agreement with the learned Special Judge that the explanation offered by the appellant for non-attendance of the Court on the above date was not sufficient. The learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to contest the above finding of the learned Special Judge.
5. We are not inclined to press into service aforesaid section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960, but we are inclined to reduce the sentence from one month simple imprisonment to the sentence till the rising of the Court, keeping in view that the appellant is a young man in Government service and has a family to support, and is sorry for his above conduct and places himself at the mercy of the Court. However, we may observe that the conduct of non-appearance in a Court in response to a process of the Court is to be depricated. In future, if the appellant does not behave in responsible manner, no leniency will be shown. The above appeal is, therefore, dismissed with the above modification in the sentence.
Sentence reduced.