' On the conclusion of the hearing of this case on 27th November, 1973, I had by a short the apology tendered by the respondents and recalled the notices. I now proceed to record my reasons for the same.
2. The petitioner Muhammad Asif Sultan holds 50 per cent, shares in a private limited company known as National Carpet Industries Ltd., and the balance of 50 per cent. Shares are owned by Messrs Jailer Brothers Ltd. Of which company the respondent Suleman Jaffer is a shareholder. It is admitted case that respondent Suleman Jaffar is also a Director of National Carpet Industries Ltd. It seems that disputes arose between Suleman Jaffer respondent and Muhammad Asif Sultan petitioner, resulting in litigation in this Court on the original side ; and some reports were also filed with the Police which are pending investigation. According to allegations the crux of the dispute appears to be want of fidelity on the part of petitioner vis-a-vis the joint business. On the other hand the petitioner alleges that he has been implicated in the criminal case by respondent Suleman Jailer solely with a view to coerce him to hand over some documents concerning the joint business to the respondent Suleman Jailer. In any case a report had been lodged by the son of respondent Suleman Jailer against petitioner Asif Sultan at Ferozabad Police Station on 8th September 1973. The Police interrogated the petitioner and allowed him to go away. It seems that the petitioner reached the Karachi Airport on the next morning for boarding a plane but was detained by the Immigration Police at the instance of the son of respondent Sulleman Jaffer. The petitioner thereafter went to Ferozabad Police Station where he was arrested and detained and subsequently released on bail by an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nazimabad, Karachi,
3. It is then the case of the petitioner Asif Sultan that while he was in custody the respondent Sulleman Jaffer prepared a draft for publication by several newspapers including daily "Aghaz" whereof respondent Inqilab Matri is the Editor. The caption reads "Arrested While Fleeing The Country-complaint of fraud of lacs of Rupees". A news item was published in the daily "Aghaz" on I 1 th September, 1973, which reads as follows :- "On the complaint that fraud has been committed upon the local National Carpet Industries, Ferozabad Police have arrested one of the Directors of the same Company, Mr. M. A. Sultan."
' It is said that Mr. Sultan had set a firm in P. E. C. H. S. Under the name and style of Markez-e-Kaleen Ltd., and had made two of his sons the Directors of the said company. One of these sons, Iqbal Sultan is a Government servant and has recently been selected in C. S. S. ' Five to seven consignments were exported by sea and air to Zurich and Vaduz in the name of Markaz-e-Kaleen. When the last consignment was being loaded on the plane the Airport Customs got suspicious and opened the consignment. During the investigation, it was found that the carpets being exported were much costlier than the declared value. The case of under-invoicing is being investigated through the State Bank.
' The other partner firm of National Carpets, Messrs Jaffer Bros. Ltd. Has filed for an injunction as well as a case for damages and accounting against Mr. Sultan in the High Court. Mr. Sultan has accepted that he has misappropriated National Carpet's carpets and exported them in the name of Shirkat-e-Kaleen and the accruing amount has been deposited in his own name in a local Bank.
Accordingly the present complaint is based on the main case filed in the High Court.
' Ferozabad Police had already taken Mr. M. Sultan and both his sons into custody to commence investigation and subsequently on Saturday September 8, all three of them wire released on bail.
' There was not the slightest suspicion that Mr. Sultan will attempt to flee the country.
' The Airport Police apprised the Ferozabad Police of Mr. Sultan's intention of leaving the country on Sunday morning. S. H.
0. At once reached the Airport, arrested M. Sultan and seized his passport.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the said publication is offensive as it gave a "totally distorted and one-sided version" of the case and is designed and calculated to paint the petitioner as a criminal involved in other cases also which were being investigated through the State Bank. In other words the grievance is that the publication tends to prejudice mankind against the petitioner in relation to a cause which was sub judice and has a tendency to interfere with the course of justice by prejudicing fair trial of the case.
5. The present petitioner under section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, was filed on 4th October 1973 viz, after 23 days of the publication and notices were issued by my learned brother Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, J. On 17th October 1973. The matter was fixed for hearing before me on 12th November 1973, but was adjourned. However, Inquilab Matri filed a statement on the said date, which is in the nature of apology although it contains an explanation that the news item was received in the office after he had left for his house at 11 p. m. He has stated that if the news item would have come to his notice he would have prevented its publication. The apology is contained in paras. 2, 3, 4, 9 and 10 of the statement which read as follows : "2. That at the very outset respondent No, 2 without any mental reservations, tenders an unqualified apology to this Hon'ble Court for the publication of the news item which forms the subject-matter of the present proceedings.
3. That respondent No, 2 most humbly wishes to assure this Hon'ble Court that he has the profoundest respect for this Hon'ble Court as also for all other Courts of law..
4. That he is a Barrister-at-law and as such he has learnt to respect the law of the land and the Hon'ble Courts which administer it.
9. That in conclusion, respondent No, 2 reiterates his sense of great respect for this Hon'ble Court and other Courts of law and tenders an absolutely unconditional apology for the lapse.
10. That the respondent throws himself at the mercy of this Hon'ble Court and prays for forgiveness."
6. On the resumed hearing of the case on 26th November 1973, respondent Suleman Jaffar also tendered an unqualified apology and regrets by filing an affidavit. He has given an explanation and has stated that one Mr. S. A. S. Nasim, a reporter of daily "Aghaz" had come to him with a type- written report in regard to the news of arrest of petitioner. Asif Sultan and it was the respondent who informed Mr. S. A. S. Nasim that Asif Sultan had been enlarged on bail. It is further stated by Suleman Jaffer that on giving the matter a second thought he contacted Mr. S. A. S. Nasim and advised him not to publish the report but in the meantime the report had been handed over by Mr. Nasim to the Editor. Mr. Nasim had however, assured respondent Suleman Jaffer that he would withhold the publication if he could. Mr. S. A. S. Nasim who is not a party in this case has also filed an affidavit substantially supporting respondent Suleman Jaffar in regard to the publication.
7. On a reading of the publication as a whole I find that a larger part of the same is a narration of the circumstances that have led to the litigation between the parties. Undoubtedly there is no comment on any actions or orders of any Court. All that is stated is that Messrs Jaffer Brothers had filed a suit for injunction and damages against the petitioner Asif Suleman and the latter had admitted misappropriation of the funds of National Carpets Ltd., and that the case is based on the allegations in the suit. No doubt it would have been better if the respondents bad refrained from giving such details about the litigation between the parties, but it cannot be said that the publication is of such a magnitude that must necessarily be visited by commitment of the respondents. I am of the view that the interference with judicial proceedings in this case is of a highly technical and trifling nature and the publication does not savour of a trial by Journalists or readers of the newspapers. Before taking action for commitment of the contemners the Court has to be satisfied that the publication substantially tends to interfere with the course of justice or create prejudice in the public mind. In the present case I am of the view that apology of the respondents should be accepted as the same are unqualified and have been submitted at the earliest point of tine and the first opportunity. Mr. Sayeed A. Shaikh and the learned Additional Advocate-General have also expressed satisfaction with the apology that each of the respondents have tendered. Since apology has been tendered ; and regard being had to the nature of the publication I am of the view that taking action for commitment will only exhibit high sensitiveness of the Court.
8. Under all the circumstances, I will accept the apology tendered by the respondents and do hereby recall and vacate the notices issued against the respondents. Notices vacated.