1. ' First Additional District Judge (South), Karachi (Mr. Muhammad Afzal Khan) addressed a letter dated 30th September, 1992 to the Registrar of this Court and reported certain facts for necessary action. The facts given in the said letter are that a Criminal case State v. Abdul Rehman and others under sections 147, 149, 427, 435, 436, P.P.C. Outcome of F.I.R. No,22/1991 of Police Station Arambagh, Karachi was pending in his Court. The respondent Nawab Muhammad Jahangir Khanji addressed a letter to the learned Judge and stated that one of the accused namely Yaqub son of Usman in the said case was a bona fide subject of the State of Junagadh, and had never indulged in any subversive activities and was taken by law enforcing agencies due to some misunderstanding. The last paragraph of the letter written by respondent is in the following words:-- "I hope you would very kindly look into the case sympathetically and do the justice to the poor family."
2. ' This D.O. Letter written by respondent was considered as interference in the judicial proceedings and therefore, a show-cause notice dated 16-9-1992 was sent to respondent, whereby he was called upon to appear in Court on 20-9-1992 in person and explain as to why the Honourable High Court should not be moved for taking contempt proceedings against him.
3. ' Respondent appeared in Court in person and filed copy to the show-cause notice in which he stated that he was unaware that his letter would amount to interference in the process of judiciary, that he realized his mistake that he should not have addressed the Honourable Court in a matter pending judicial determination. He also expressed extreme sorrow for his said act and tendered unqualified apology. He further stated that he holds the Courts in highest esteem. Lastly he prayed with all the humility that his said act of unintentional lapses may be condoned.
4. ' The learned Additional District Judge brought the above facts to the notice of this Court through his said letter for further action. His Lordship the Chief Justice passed the following order on 23-10- 1992:-- "Let the matter be taken on the Original Side of this Court as a contempt matter and notice be issued to the contemner before the Court. If he tenders unqualified apology the same will be duly considered."
5. ' Notice was accordingly issued to the contemner who appeared in person alongwith his Advocate and filed statement dated 15-11-1992. He has stated that on account of lack of knowledge about the contempt laws he has repented and tendered unconditional apology with assurance that he would not repeat such act in future and threw himself at the mercy of this Court.
6. ' The respondent appeared in Court today and expressed that he was extremely sorry for his act of addressing a D.O. Letter to the learned Judge. His Advocate Mr. Abdul Sattar Osman Memon also pleaded that the respondent on receipt of notice from the learned Additional District Judge, appeared in Court and tendered unqualified apology on the first date. Even before this Court the respondent appeared in person and tendered unqualified apology with assurance that he would not repeat such act.
7. ' Mr. Muhammad Zubair Qureshi, learned Advocate appearing for the State has stated that the respondent on receipt of notice from the learned Additional District Judge immediately appeared before the Court and tendered unconditional apology. Similarly, pursuant to a notice by this Court, he appeared and expressed his sorrow and offered unqualified apology. In the circumstances the learned Advocate has no objection if the apology tendered by respondent is accepted and he is forgiven.
8. ' Respondent, when served with a notice by the learned Additional District Judge, appeared in person and offered unconditional apology. Similarly on being served with a notice by this Court, on the first date he appeared and expressed sorrow over his such act and tendered unconditional apology and prayed for forgiveness. He has also assured that he would not repeat such act again.
9. He has at the earliest tendered unconditional apology and shown repentance. In the circumstances I am inclined to accept apology tendered by respondent and the notice issued to him is recalled. Respondent is however warned that he should be more careful in future and restrain himself from addressing the Courts of law in matters pending adjudication or in any manner trying to influence the presiding officers of the Courts. In taking the above view, I am guided by the rule laid down in (i) Federation of Pakistan v. Yusuf Ali Khan PLD 1977 SC 236, (ii)
10. Fakhre Alam v. The State and another PLD 1973 SC 525 and (iii) The State v. The Editor, Daily Jasarar Karachi PLD 1991 Kar.
11. 233.