1. ' HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. J.-This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the former High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, accepting a reference under subsection (1) of section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926, by the learned Sessions Judge, Nawabshah, convicting the appellant herein under section 3 of the above- mentioned Act and imposing a fine of Rs, 1,000 to be paid within one month or, in default, three months' simple imprisonment.
2. ' The appellant, who is a printer, publisher and editior of a weekly Sindhi newspaper called the 'Jihad', it appears, filed a complaint against the respondent No, 2, a Development Officer of an Insurance Company, before the Joint Civil Judge and First Class Magistrate, Nawabshah, alleging offences under sections 504, 342 and 220, P. P. C., but the same was summarily dismissed under section 203, Cr. P. C. On the 21st of August 1965.
3. ' Against that order of dismissal, the appellant went up in revision before the Sessions Court, Nawabshah. This was allowed and the case was remanded for proceeding according to law on the 26th of March 1966.
4. Three days later, the appellant's newspaper published in its issue of the 28th of March 1966, an article under the caption "Revision petition against misdeeds of Gul Muhammad Solangi allowed".
5. In this article, after reciting the fact that in the complaint against the said Gul Muhammad Solangi, Muhammad Hayat, Head Constable, Agha Razi, Head Constable and Muhammad Shoaib, a constable, which arose out of an incident in respect of the execution of a warrant, the Court had bound down the accused with a surety in the sum of Rs, 1,000 for producing the accused on the dates of hearing but the said Gul Muhammad Solangi had "compelled the police to adopt unlawful attitude with the result that the police in defiance of the order of the Court had refused to accept the surety and kept the accused in wrongful confinement by adopting illegal methods".
6. ' Thereafter, in its issue of the BM of June 1966, the appellant again published a complaint against the autocracy of one Abdur Rahman Shaikh, a clerk of the Court of the Joint Sub-Judge, Nawabshah. In this article, apart from painting the said clerk as a bully and a high-handed person who showed favours to accused persons, it was alleged that his misbehaviours were carried out so boldly and carelessly that "it probably appears that the Magistrate of the Court is kind to him, or so to say he wields much influence in the higher offices, and that is why he is so proud. It appears as though he is the master of the Court". This was followed with a request that the proud clerk should be transferred and thus the public relieved of a nuisance.
7. ' Then came a third article in the issue of the said newspaper of the 5th/ 6th August 1966, in which the appellant, while lauding the District and. Sessions Judge, Nawabshah for certain administrative actions taken by him requested hill also to examine the working of the Magistrates subordinate to him in order to see whether the subordinate Magistrates were behaving properly or not.
8. ' The administrative action obliquely referred to was the transfer of the Clerk earlier complained against, and the request for investigation into the working of the Magistrates was obliquely directed against, it is alleged, the Civil Judge and Joint Magistrate, Nawabshah. In the same issue, there were also two other articles under the captions "why a goonda on the loose" and "Officer's dog without leash".
9. ' The direct complaint of the appellant against Gul Muhammad Solangi, the respondent No, 2, and the three constables was ultimately again dismissed on the 21st of August 1966, by the Joint Civil Judge and First Class Magistrate. This order, it appears, was subsequently upheld in revision by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nawabshah, and in Second Revision by the High Court in Revision Petition No, 227 of 1966.
10. ' Thereafter, the respondent No, 2 moved the Joint Civil Judge and First Class Magistrate, Nawabshah, to proceed against the appellant under the Contempt of Courts Act in respect of these publications. A notice was issued to the appellant who filed his explanation through his Advocate on the 12th of October 1967, in which the publications were admitted but it was denied that they were published with any intent to prejudice and pending proceeding or to scandalise the Court in any way. The Civil Judge, however, felt that the publications having been made when the complaint was pending before the Court, contained direct and indirect allegations against the said respondent as well as the Court. He, accordingly, forwarded the complaint to the District and Sessions Judge, Nawabshah, who forwarded it to the High Court.
11. ' The High Court directed notice to issue to the appellant, and after hearing the appellant came to the conclusion that the remarks were made during the pendency of the case against the iespondent Gul Muhammad Solangi in language which was both evasive and offensive. It had, therefoie, caused prejudice to the case pending against the said respondent.
12. ' The aiticle published in the issue of the 13th of June 1966, under the caption "Rat's race" was held to be inoffensive but the others were held to have been made wilfully and to amount to an unjustified attack on the Court.
13. ' It may be mentioned here that in the High Court the appellant did not set up any defence but tendered an unqualified apology, threw himself at the mercy of the Court and prayed that the reference may be discharged.
14. ' The High Court, however, found the apology to be a belated one and not sufficient to purge the contempt committed by the appellant. He was, accordingly, convicted and sentenced.
15. ' Leave was granted in this case to consider whether the articles complained of did constitute a - contempt of Court within the meaning of section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act and whether the Court was justified in refusing to accept the apology.
16. ' Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the High Court has possibly been influenced by the concession made on behalf of the appellant in the High Court that the articles constituted contempt without applying its own independent mind to the words of the articles and the effect they were reasonable likely to produce on the mind of the readers. The Court, it is further contended, was also not justified in refusing to accept the apology under the mistaken belief that it had been tendered at a late stage of the proceeding.
17. ' The notice was issued in this case by the High Court on the 8th of May 1968, and the appellant without filing any defence at all tendered his apology on the 6th of May 1969, before the reference came up for hearing on the 13th of May 1969. The apology was, therefore, it is contended, tendered at the earliest opportunity possible and there was no delay at all. It was a complete surrender and the Court should have, in the circumstances, accepted the apology.
18. Learned counsel has also taken us through the articles which are in Sindhi in an attempt to show that it is possible that the learned Judge had also misinterpreted these articles. We, therefore, called upon the official senior translator of the High Court, Sind & Baluchistan to translate these articles for us and he has done so. It does appear to us, upon a plain reading of these articles that the first one published on the 28th March 1966, during the pendency of the complaint filed by the appellant against Gul Muhammad Solangi and others did tend to prejudice the case of the said Gul Muhammad Solangi in the eyes of the public. Apart from that, the observation in the article of the 13th June 1966, to the effect that the clerk of the Court appears to have assumed a position as though he was the master of the Court, was likely to lower the Court in the estimation of the public.
19. The innuendo being that either the Court was conniving at the malpractices of the clerk or was not in a position to curb his misdeeds.
20. ' Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the decision of this Court in the cases of Saadat Khialy v. The State (1) and The Attorney-General of Pakistan v. Abdul Hamid Shaikh (2) and has contended that the offending articles should be read liberally and as whole in a reasonable manner. The Courts should not, in exercising such an extraoidinary jurisdiction, be unduly touchy and sensitive or punish technical or trifling interferences. What they should look for is as to whether there had been any substantial interference with a fair trial. It is not the purpose of the Court to interfere in every case of a technical contempt.
21. We do not dispute the correcteness of the principles laid down in these cases. Applying these principles to the articles in question, however, we feel that the High Court acted rightly in holding that the first article did tend to prejudice the case of a party in a pending proceeding in which the appellant himself was the complainant and that the article of the 13th of June 1966, was reasonably capable of creating the impression in the minds of reasonable readers that the Court concerned was, at any rate, a weak Court that was not in a position to maintain discipline and decorum in its own Court.
22. ' The concession made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the High Court was, therefore, not ill-advised and the appellant did well not to contest the proceeding but to throw himself at the mercy of the Court by tendering an unconditional apology.
23. ' The question, therefore, that now arises is as to whether that apology should have been accepted.
24. An apology, however unqualified, as was pointed out in the case of The State v. S. W. Lakitullah (3) "does not necessarily purge the contempt, for, it can only be taken into consideration in mitigating the offence of contempt". This view has been approved by this Court in the case of In re : Arif Nizami
(4) where the Court has pointed out that :- "An apology does not provide the contemner with an absolute excuse for the offending publication nor does it entitle him to a discharge as of right, for it cannot remedy the evil caused or the harm done to the administration of justice by shaking the confidence of the public in the Court or a particular Judge of the Court. It is only a mitigating circumstance and no more, but even in this respect an apology in order to dilute the gravity of the offence must evidence a real contrition and an earnest desire to make amends or as has been said in some cases must be a "manful confession of conscious wrong doing". No one should be under the impression that the press does not enjoy any special privilege of traducing the Judges nor should there be any impression that after one has grievously slandered and scandalized a Judge of a superior Court he can come to the Court and get away with it by merely tendering an apology."
25. It this view of the matter, we cannot help feeling that the learned Judge of the High Court has taken a rather harsh view. The petitioner did throw himself at the mercy of the Court without any demur or qualification and, therefore, did show the spirit of manful confession of conscious wrong doing.
26. Such an apology should, in the normal circumstances, have been
(1) PLD 964 SC 457 (2) PLD 1963 SC 170
(3) PLD 1959 Dacca 84 (4) PLD 1971 SC 72 ' accepted ; but, since the acceptance of an apology is for the Court before which it has been tendered and not for a Court sitting in appeal, we feel that it would not the proper for us to accept the apology at this stage. But at the same time, we are clearly of the view that the harshness of the sentence should be reduced, as we have the right to do, even in an appeal against an order convicting a person for contempt.
27. ' Even in the case of Fakhre Alam v. The State (I) this Court did not accept the apology at the very first stage but made a reference to the High Court to consider this question. It was only when the High Court left the question to this Court that the Court accepted the apology on behalf of the High Court. We feel that, in the facts and circumstances of this case, it would be unnecessary to follow this procedure and prolong these proceedings any further.
28. ' We would, therefore, dismiss this appeal but reduce the sentence from Rs, 1,000 to Re. 1 (Rupee one) only.
29. ' This fine should be paid within one month, but if the contemnor fails to pay the fine within the said period, he will suffer simple imprisonment for one day.
(1) PLD 1973 SC 59