1. ' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the learned Chief Justice of the High Court of Sindh dated 6-1-1993 whereby exercising his inherent power inter alia under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Read with Articles 2A and 203 of the Constitution it was directed that respondent No.1, who is District and Sessions Judge, East Karachi, would not be arrested.
2. On 4-1-1993 at 11-15 a.m. One Jehangir Khan lodged a report with the. Anti-Corruption Police, Karachi, in which it was alleged that the Deputy. Commissioner, South Karachi had allotted his cousin Malik Salman Khalid, the petitioner, a piece of land measuring 10x5 square feet near Gate No.2 of the City Court Compound on licence on which he had constructed a shop. It was alleged that respondent No.1 had served a notice on 20-10-1992 that the construction may be removed otherwise it would be demolished. On 21-12-1992 at 10-00 a.m. He saw that under the supervision of respondent No.1 P.W.D. And police were demolishing the shop. He went to him and protested and showed the allotment order on which he said that he may come and see him in his chamber. After demolishing the shop respondent No.1 went to his chamber when the complainant alongwith one Raja Qurban met him in chamber upon which respondent No.1 said that he would permit it to be constructed if Rs.50,000 was paid as illegal gratification. The complainant asked for time and respondent No.1 stated that on 4-1-1993 he should bring the money and pay it to his Steno Khadim whom he called and showed to him. It seems that after the report was lodged, Anti-Corruption Police conducted a raid and it is alleged that tainted money was recovered from the Stenographer and his statement was also recorded by a Magistrate. At that time respondent No.1 was not in his chamber and had gone home. Immediatelty on coming to know about the incident respondent No.1 submitted a report to the Registrar of the High Court which reads as follows:-- "On receipt of your letter NoAdmn/Misc. (1992) (Cattle) dated 17-12-1992 on 19-12-1992 and by finding illegal Pucca construction in progress in front of Court-room of District Judge, Karachi East, the person making unauthorised construction, namely, Mr. Salman Khalid son of Muhammad Ramzan was served with a notice dated 20-12-1992 calling upon him not only to stop construction but also to remove already constructed portion. Instead of stopping the construction he accelerated the same and so such unauthorised construction I got removed with the assistance of Ilaqa Police in consultation with the Registrar, Mr. Rana Bhagwandas on phone. After demolition the debris were removed through the P.W.D. On 22-12-1992 the Superintending Engineer, Provincial Building Circle, Karachi, was requested to place cement benches at the said place to protect from unauthorised occupation and to facilitate the litigant public.
2. ' After demolition as aforesaid Mr. Salman Khalid and his associates extended threats to the members of the staff of my Court. On 4-1-1993 I left my Court at 3-00 p.m. When 1 reached my residence I received a telephonic message from my Serishtedar Mr. Chuttan that Anti-Corruption Staff with Army Pesonnel had raided the office, assaulted Mr. Khadim Hussain, Mr. Muhammad Rashid Khan, Stenographers, Mr. Jamal Shaikh Copyist in presence of Mr. Fida Hussain Bokhari, C.O.C. Mr. Muhammad Aminullah C.O. C.V. Additional District & Sessions Court, Mr. Muhammad Arif, Junior Clerk, Mr. Mazhar Copyist and Gunman Atif, Mr. Rahat Hussain Kazmi and Ghaffar Baloch, Advocates and finally dragged away Mr. Khadim Hussain. I was further informed that the above team also inquired about my residential address. They further coerced Mr. Khadim Hussain to make statement that for reconstruction I had demanded Rs.50,000.
3. ' On receipt of this message I directed C.O.C. Mr. Bukhari to lodge a report with Risala Police Station about this incident. He accordingly sent a written report, copy of which is annexed hereto. Mr. Khadim Hussain has not been released, he appears to be now in unlawful custody.
4. ' This morning I have come across a news item published in Daily `Dawn' about this incident, copy of which is enclosed herewith. It speaks for itself.
5. ' This may kindly be placed before the Honourable Chief Justice for information and necessary action."
6. ' On receipt of this report notice was issued to the Advocate-General for 6-1-1993 when the following order was passed:- "A report had been submitted by Mr. Shabbir Ahmad, District and Sessions Judge, Karachi East, addressed to the Registrar of this Court in connection with certain incident that had taken place in the premises of the District Court, Karachi. With the report several documents are annexed. This report was submitted yesterday and was placed before me. It was directed that this matter may be treated as Contempt Application and, in the first instance, notice may be issued for today to the learned Advocate-General, Sindh. Mr. K.M. Nadeem, learned AA.-G., has appeared pursuant to notice stating that the learned Advocate-General is suffering from serious eye trouble and confined to bed and has not attended his duties during the last 2/3 days. However, Mr. K.M.
7. Nadeem states that he represents the Advocate-General today.
8. ' Mr. Sharaf Faridi, President of the High Court Bar Association, Karachi and Mr. Ameen Lakhani, President of the Karachi Bar Association are also present. The two Bar Associations will be assisting the Court alongwith Advocate-General in this Contempt Application.
9. ' An FIR had been recorded on 4-1-1993 at Police Station Anti-Corruption, Karachi. Thereafter Mr. Khadim Hussain., PA. To the District and Sessions Judge, East, was taken into custody. The District and Sessions Judge East has also been implicated in the F.I.R. On the same day, the aforesaid report about the incident was made by the District and Sessions Judge East to the Registrar. If what the Registrar has stated in his report is correct and the same is read in conjunction with the documents attached with the report, it would appear to be a clear case of Contempt on the part of the Authorities concerned. However, Mr. K.M. Nadeem, learned AA.-G. Informs that in the meantime, Government of Sindh has decided to conduct a judicial enquiry into the incident of 4-1-1993. Mr. K.M. Nadeem, learned AA.-G. Has been informed that in case a judicial enquiry is to be conducted the Enquiry Officer should be a sitting Judge of this Court, to be nominated by the Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of this Court and, keeping in mind the very serious nature of the allegations and counter-allegations, it is absolutely necessary in the larger interest of justice, that the enquiry be completed and the report submitted within 10 days and not within one month, as reported in the newspapers of today.
10. ' I am adjourning this matter to 7-1-1993 at 11-30 a.m. And in case an Enquiry Officer is appointed, as aforesaid, further proceedings in the present Contempt Application will be kept pending till the report of the Enquiry Officer is submitted. The order appointing the Enquiry Officer may also provide that a copy of the report with entire record of the proceedings conducted by the Enquiry Officer will be forwarded to the Chief Justice.
11. ' In the circumstances of this case, with the inherent powers, inter alia, under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
12. Available to this Court read with Articles 2A and 203 of the Constitution, it is directed that till further orders of this Court, Mr. Shabbir Ahmad, District and Sessions Judge, East, will not be arrested in this case, i.e. Crime No.2/93, of P.S. Anti-Corruption, Karachi.
13. ' Copy of this order may be supplied today to the learned AA.-G and to the Presidents of the Bar Associations."
14. ' It seems that the Government of Sindh issued notification dated 6-1-1993 appointing Mr. Justice Akhtar Ali Qazi, a Judge of the High Court of Sindh as a Tribunal to enquire into the matter which inter alia was required to enquire into the incident alleged to have occurred on 4-1-1993 at about 3-00 p.m.Leading to the arrest of one khadim Hussain, Stenographer and to fix the liability of the persons alleged to be involved in this incident.
3. Mr. Raja Muhammad Bashir, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the High Court had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Or any ohter provisions invoked therein. He contended that as the prosecution machinery had been set in motion, inherent jursidcition should not have been exercised to set at naught the ordinary procedure under the ordinary law. The learned Chief Justice has invoked the jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. And Articles 2A and 203 of the Constitution. A jurisdiction under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Can be invoked to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The inherent power should be rarely and sparingly invoked only in the interest of justice so as to redress grievances for which considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no other procedure or remedy is avaiable. It is an extraordinary jursidcition which cannot override the provisions of the Code, but cases may arise where demand of justice requires immediate, real and substantial justice. In such circumstances, the Court would be justified to exercise this jurisdiction to save a party from harassm ent and abuse of the process of Court. Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. May be used sparingly but it confers wide power on the Court to meet such eventualities and pass any order which ends of justice may require. The question whether a case is covered by the term 'the ends of jsutice is to be determined by considering the facts and circumstances of each case. In Shahkot Bus Service v. State and another (1969 SCM R 325), Justice Hamoodur Rehman, CJ observed as follows:-- "It is, no doubt, true that where express provision is made in the Code itself for a particular purpose, recourse cannot be had to the inherent jurisdiction to achieve the same purpose, but at the same time it has to be pointed out that the inherent power of the High Court is of a very wide and indefinable nature and in exercise of this power the High Court can make all such orders which may be necessary to do real and substantial justice and prevent abuse of the process of the Court, subject only to the limitation that it cannot override an express provision of the Code."
15. If by looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the Court comes to the conclusion that the process of Court is being abused or male fide action has been taken to scandalise a judicial officer or to harass him on concocted and prima facie false charges to wreak vengeance and is intended to defame and cause disrepute to the judiciary, the High Court would be justified to exercise its inherent jurisdiction. The learned Chief Justice had before him F.I.R. As well as a counter-version made by respondent No.1 in which it was stated that it was at the direction of the learned Chief Justice that he had cleared the structure from the City Court Building. In such circumstances, prima facie, one is made to think how respondent No.1 would have dared to grant permission for reconstruction and that too after charging illegal gratification. Considering the facts and documents before the learned Chief Justice he thought it fit to invoke the inherent power to secure the ends of justice. From the documents, the wide publicity in the Press, reaction of the members of the Bar, the manner in which various Government and law-enforcing agencies not connected with such cases were employed and the manner they behaved, the learned Chief Justice seemed to be of the view that it was a conspiracy to scandalise and undermine the authority of the Court and for that reason Article 203 was also invoked treating the action to be a contemp of Court.
4. During arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner while criticising produced a copy of the report submitted by the Tribunal dated 5-4-1993 which runs in 80 pages and has been placed on record. We are amazed how the petitioner/complainant has been able to obtain photo copy of the report within three weeks of its submission particularly as it has not come through any Government agency. This exhaustive report makes an interesting and illuminating study and confirms the apprehensions of the learned Chief Justice. The Tribunal had examined a large number of witnesses including the petitioner, complainant, staff of the Anti-Corruption Police, the Magistrate, the respondent and many other witnesses including the Advocates who were present at the time of occurrence. Some extracts of the report will show the nature of the case and the manner in which action was taken by the police. The Tribunal has found as follows:- ' Para. 74 "The evidence on record shows that all the witnesses are interested. No effort has been made by the I.O. To have an independent and impartial witness in this case. Even the SDM had not made any effort in that direction. All the witnesses including the official witnesses examined before the Tribunal have tried to suppress the material facts which clearly establish that no Court or Tribunal can place any reliance on their evidence.
16. ' Para. 77 ' The investigation in this case has not been conducted in proper manner. In addition to that it has come on record that at least 30 persons had entered the Court at the time of raid. It has also come on record through the witnesses that the road around the City Courts premises where Sessions Court is also located was completely blocked. The entire Court premises were surrounded by the raiding party and it became very clear for every one to know that something unusual was to take place. There were many Advocates, stamp-vendors and members of public present at the time of this incident. Will under these circumstances a man of even ordinary understanding accept bribe money? It appears from the evidence on record that the Court was raided rather than a trap was laid. The purpose of trap is that the trapping party should conduct trap in such a manner that no one can even suspect of the trap. All these facts show that intention of all the persons involved in conducting the raid was only to create terror and humiliation for the Judge and his staff and to destroy the image of the judiciary in the minds of public-at-large.
17. ' Para. 78 ' The news items which were published at the instance of the S.P. Anti-Corruption also clearly show that the Anti-Corruption Establishment even wanted to arrest the Sessions Judge had he been present at that time. He has been shown as accused in the F.I.R. And even in all the case diraries issued by the Anti-Corruption establishment. When finding himself in a difficult situation the S.P.
18. Anti-Corruption establsihement has now tried to deny having given information to the Press regarding this incident."
19. ' The Tribunal on assessm ent of evidence concluded that investigation was not property conducted and has been made with dishonest intention. It was also observed as follows:-- "Para. 89 ' The investigation has not been properly conducted and the Anti-Corruption Establishment has intentionally violated the rules and regulations. The entire investigation clearly shows that the investgation in this case is dishonest and they have tried to create evidence against the accused involved in this case.
20. ' Para. 90 ' The Deputy Commissioner who has taken personal interest even in allotting the site in question in violation of the Standing Orders of the Government of Sindh and has taken demolition of the shop as a question of his personal prestige. It is also clear from the evidence on record that all the Executive Authorities of the District felt that the action of the Sessions Judge had affected their personal prestige to such an extent that they wanted to re-establish their authority and in order to do so they were prepared to take any step. Mr. Raeesuddin Paracha is S.D.M. Working under him.
21. The S.P. Anti-Corruption Mr. Qazi Abdul Ghani belongs to Police Department. Deputy Commissioner, Wajid Rana has himself admitted that he has even officiated as Additional Secretary, Home Department,. Nazir Sheikh is a very junior officer and possibly the S.P. Anti-Corruption Establishment intentionally handed over the investigation to a junior officer who should work under his instructions according to his wishes without realising the importance of this case.
22. ' Para. 91 ' After considering the entire evidence in this case produced by the Government of Sindh through their witnesses which has come on record and the surrounding circumstances, I am of the definite view that the evidence in this case has been fabricated only to humiliate the District and Sessions Judge. The incident of 4-1-1993 which occurred in the premises of the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Karachi East, at about 3 p.m. Leading to the arrest of Khadim Hussain Steno of the District and Sessions Judge East, Karachi, by the Anti-Corruption Police is not based on any evidence worthy of credit."
23. ' While fixing the liability it was inter alia obseryed as follows:-- "Para. 100 ' So far Mr. Abdul Wajid Rana, Deputy Commissioner, South, Mr. Raeesuddin Peracha, Assistant Commissioner and S.D.M., Mr. Qazi Abdul Ghani, S.P. Anti-Corruption and Nazir Shaikh are concerned, they are all liable alongwith Jehangir, Salma, Ziaullah, Akhtar and Qurban for having conspired to involve the Sessions Judge and his P.A. Khadim Hussain in this anti-corruption case which resulted in the raid on the Court of Sessions Judge, East Karachi. I feel that sufficient evidence has come on record to make them liable for criminal and civil action under various provisions of law and also under the provisions of section 5 (2) of the Anti-Corruption Act."
24. ' From this report it is clear that the learned Tribunal has given a finding against the prosecution in clear terms that it was engineered to falsely implicate respondent No.1 and to humiliate him. The learned Chief Justice had duly assessed the situation and facts from the documents and material before him which now prima facie stand confirmed and therefore he was justified in passing the impugned order in such a situation which required immediate redress with a view to secure the ends of justice.
5. The impugned order is an interim order in nature with which this Court is reluctant to interfere unless a case of grave injustice is made out. Furthermore action has been taken under Article 203 of the Constitution as well which requires investigation and proceeding under law. From the impugned order it seems that the Provincial Government had decided to appoint a Tribunal and therefore in the circumstances of the case the order prohibiting the arrest of respondent No.1 was justified.
25. ' We refuse to grant leave. The petition is dismissed.