' SH. RIAZ AHMAD, J.--- The appellant stands convicted by a Single Judge of this Court for having committed the contempt of this Court by deposing falsely in the Court proceedings. Thus, the appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of six months, and to pay a fine of Rupees five thousand. The appellant has filed this appeal to call in question his conviction and sentence, which shall be disposed of through this judgment.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that Safia Begum and her husband filed a writ petition bearing No,W.P.5329 of 1989, wherein, it was alleged that she was apprehended by police on 26-8-1989 at the instigation of respondents Nos.4 and 5 in the writ petition and on the application of respondent No,3, in the writ petition she was illegally detained in the police station till 10-00 p.m. Thereafter, due to the intervention of the respectables, she was released therefrom.
Subsequently, her husband namely Nazir Ahmad was detained in the same manner by the S.H.O.
And appellant from 26-8-1989 to 29-8-1989. After his release from the police station, his son namely Abdul Aziz was taken into illegal custody without any reason and justification, as his son was not involved in any case, nor any complaint was lodged against him.
3. On 3rd of September, 1989, this Court deputed a Bailiff to recover and produce the detenu before it. Accordingly, the Bailiff visited the Police Station, Green Town the same day. S.H.O. And appellant were absent, and only Liaqat Ali, M.H.C. Alongwith other officials was present in the police station.
The Bailiff after having disclosed his identity searched for the detenu, and found him sitting on the floor in the constables' barrack with fetters on his legs. The detenu informed the Bailiff that the police had brought him from his house 4/5 days back, and since then he was in the police station.
While the Bailiff was incorporating a Rapt in the Roznamcha, at that moment the appellant came there, and told the Bailiff that he had received an application in respect of the abduction of one Mst. Nighat, and the mother of the detenu was described to be the accused for the aforesaid abduction. The appellant further told the Bailiff, that he visited the house of the petitioners, but since petitioner No,1 could not be found available, the detenu had undertaken to produce her in the police station, on 3-9-1989. According to the appellant, the detenu had come all alone to the police station in his absence, and the Muharrir of the police station had informed the detenu, that the appellant had gone out of the police station, and thus, the detenu waited for the appellant in the police station. About the fetters on the legs of the detenu, the appellant stated that some constable might have put the same in his absence. The appellant further informed the Court that the detenu was neither required in any case or complaint nor was duly arrested by the police.
4. The Bailiff submitted his report on 4th of September, 1989, and produced the detenu in presence of the appellant. The statements of the S.H.O. And the appellant were recorded. The S.H.O. Stated that he had enquired from the appellant as to the detention of Aziz Ahmad, and the appellant had replied him that there was a complaint of Mst. Zubeda Begum as to the abduction of her daughter, and the detenu was being detained in connection with the investigation of the abduction of Mst.
Nighat. He further stated that he later on learnt that the complainant did not want to get a case registered. The Bailiff of this Court was however apprised of all these facts, the S.H.O. Added.
5. After recording the statement of the S.H.O., the statement of the appellant was also recorded, who stated that the detenu came to the police station in his absence, and went to the barracks of the constables from where he was recovered by the Bailiff. He further stated that he was not aware of the presence of the detenu in the police station and also did not know as to who had fettered the detenu.
6. The perusal of the statements of the S.H.O. And the appellant reveals that the statement of the appellant was a patent lie, that is why, this Court decided to issue him a notice to show cause as to why he should not be committed for the contempt of this Court. Obviously, the appellant seems to be an incorrigible Police Officer having no regard as to the proceedings and the dignity of the Court. It 'is pertinent to mention that the statement of the appellant was recorded subsequent to the statement of the S.H.O., who clearly stated that the detenu had been detained for the investigation of an abduction case of Mst. Nighat pursuant to the application filed by her mother Mst. Zubeda Begum. The appellant in a most daring manner not only tried to hoodwink this Court, but also belied the S.H.O. By expressing his total ignorance about the presence of the detenu in the police station. The appellant in the first instance stated that he had gone to meet the petitioner Safia Begum in connection with the investigation into the abduction of Mst. Nighat who was not found present, and the detenu being her son had undertaken to produce his mother before him in the police station, but the detenu had come all alone in the police station where he was not present, and then on his own, he went to the barracks of the constables, where some constable had put fetters on his legs. Obviously, this is nothing but amounts to flagrant disregard of the dignity of the Court, and such tendency has reduced the system of administration of justice into mockery. It may be noticed that in departmental proceedings, the appellant pleaded his innocence, but the charge was proved, and he was only censured. The conduct of the appellant is that he offered unconditional apology, and threw himself at the mercy of this Court.
7. As far as apology is concerned, it also amounts to admission of guilt, and thus following the dictum laid down in a case reported as Akma Awal v. The State PLD 1964 SC 562 the apology can only be accepted, if it is found sincere, and is offered out of the sense of remorse. But in this case, the apology was offered only with a view to hoodwink this Court, and to escape from the rigours of law. In this view of the matter, we are of the view, that the appellant was rightly convicted. Hence, we do not find any substance in this appeal, which is dismissed accordingly. However, quantum of sentence needs reconsideration. Therefore, the sentence is reduced from six months to one month's S.I. Sentence of fine is maintained. In default of the payment of fine, the appellant shall further undergo S.I. For 15 days.
Sentence reduced.