1. ' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.--The English daily newspaper "The Nation", Lahore, in its issue of 5th February, 1993, carried the following statement of General (Retd.) Mirza Aslam Beg (the respondent), said to have been made in reply to a question put to him by a journalist during the programme "Meet the Press", organised by Lahore Press Club on 4-2-1993:--- "LAHORE:---Former Chief of. Army Staff Gen. (Retd.) Mirza Aslam Beg conceded on Thursday, that he had sent a message to the Supreme Court to reverse its decision in 1990 to restore the Junejo Government after finding its dissolution by late President Gen. Ziaul Haq unlawful.
2. ' Elections had been promised to the people and I ensured that they were held.' He said while talking to journalists at a Meet the Press Programme. Beg said he had sent a person, whom he did not identify but said was still holding a 'high post', to convey his message to the Chief Justice. The decision of the Court was in contradiction with my own', he said and maintained that he accepted the responsibility even if his action amounted to interference in the affairs of the judiciary."
3. ' Similar reports, in respect of statement of respondent made during the programme "Meet the Press" at Lahore, were published by almost all the leading daily newspapers of the country in their issues of 5th February, 1993. The above statement of respondent aroused serious reactions from different sections of people, including a statement from the former Chief Justice of Pakistan, describing the statement of respondent as baseless.
4. ' This Court took suo motu notice of the above statement of respondent which appeared in the issue of 'The Nation', Lahore, dated 5th February, 1993 and accordingly, the Registrar of Supreme Court addressed a letter to respondent on 9-2-1993, seeking confirmation of the above statement.
5. The respondent was also asked by the Registrar of this Court in the above letter to disclose the date and time when the alleged message was conveyed to the Chief Justice of Pakistan, in case he owned the above reported statement as correct. The respondent in reply to the above letter of Registrar stated as follows, on 12-2-1993:--- "This is in response to your Confidential Letter No,P.Reg/93-SCJ, dated 9th February, 1993, which was received by me on 10th February, 1993.
(2) Kindly note that two days before receiving this letter, i,e, on the Seth February, 1993, I had already issued a Press Release which was to the following effect, and which was published in the National Press on the 9th February, 1993:- 'I find that various versions of my statement have been published in the national press of what I said, in answer to a question in 'Meet the Press' session at the Lahore Press Club on 4th of February, '1993. In order to put the record straight, I feel called upon to clarify, that, all that I said on that occasion was, that, I did try to convey to the Honourable Supreme Court that, we had given a solemn undertaking to the nation that elections to the National Assembly would be held according to schedule already announced and that, therefore, it would be in the best interest of the nation that we stick to the promise and the said elections were allowed to be held, accordingly. When further asked whether my action did not constitute 'Contempt of Court', my answer was, that I definitely did not think so, as the information was sought to be conveyed in good faith and in national interest.
6. ' In the circumstances, the impression given by the press reporting's, that, I had claimed, that I got the Supreme Court judgment reversed, is wholly unfounded.'
(3) May I further add that, my response in question was to a question asked by Mr. Aurangzeb of the Daily 'Muslim', and the report was filed by him and published in the daily Muslim on 5th February, 1993, is appended hereto as Annex 'A'.
(4) I hope this answers your query. However, I may respectfully add that should the Honourable.
7. Supreme Court still require any further information in the context of para. 2 of its Confidential Letter under reply, I shall most respectfully comply with the learned Court's direction."
8. ' After considering the reply of respondent in the light of other material available before the Court, it was decided to proceed in the matter formally in accordance with sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of Order XXVII of Supreme Court Rules, 1980. Accordingly, the respondent was directed to appear before the Court on 20-2-1993. The case proceeded partly on 20-2-1993 in presence of Attorney-General, respondent and his counsel and then it was adjourned to the following day (21-2-1993), for appearance of reporters of the daily "The Nation" and "The News" who covered the address of respondent at 'Meet the Press' Programme on 4-2-1993. On 21-2-1993 the Court after recording statement of Salman Mahmood, Reporter of the daily 'The Nation', reached the conclusion that a prima facie case of contempt was made out against the respondent and accordingly the respondent was charged as follows:--- "CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS NO.12 OF 1993 ' Charge of Contempt of Court under Article 204 of the Constitution read with Rule 7(2), Order XXVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 and all other enabling powers.
9. ' WHEREAS newspapers dated 5th February, 1993 carried your statement made at 'Meet the Press'
10. Programme organized by the Lahore Press Club on Thursday, the 4th February, 1993: ' AND WHEREAS the report of your aforesaid statement appearing in the daily 'The Nation', Islamabad on 5th February, 1993 was as follows:--- `Former Chief of Army Staff Gen. (Retd.) Mirza Aslam Beg conceded on Thursday that he had sent a message to the Supreme Court to reverse its decision in 1990 to restore the Junejo Government after finding its dissolution by late President Gen. Ziaul Haq unlawful.' `Election had been promised to the people and I ensured that they were held', he said while talking to journalists at a Meet the Press Programme. Beg said he had sent a person, whom he did not identify but said was still holding a 'high post' to convey his message to the Chief Justice. The decision of the Court was in contradiction with my own', he said and maintained that he accepted the responsibility even if his action amounted to interference in the affairs of the judiciary.'
11. ' AND WHEREAS in reply to the letter of the Registrar of this Court dated 9th February, 1993 you sent a letter, dated 12th February, 1993 stating as follows:- '2. Kindly note that two days before receiving this letter, i,e,, on the 8th February, 1993, I had already issued a Press Release, which was to the following effect, and which was published in the National Press on the 9th February, 1993:- 'I find that various versions of my statement have been published in the National Press of what I said, in answer to a question in 'Meet the Press' session at the Lahore Press Club on 4th February, 1993. In order to put the record straight, I feel called upon to clarify, that, all that I said on that occasion was, that, I did try to convey to the Hon'ble Supreme Court that, we had given a solemn undertaking to the nation that elections to the National Assembly would be held according to the schedule already announced and that, therefore, it would be in the best interest of the nation that we stick to our promise and the said elections were allowed to be held, accordingly. When further asked whether my action did not constitute 'Contempt of Court', my answer was that I defmitely did not think so, as the information was sought to be conveyed in good faith and in national interest.'
12. ' In the circumstances, the impression given by the press reporting's, that, I had claimed, that I got the Supreme Court judgment reversed, is wholly unfounded.'
(4) AND WHEREAS a notice was issued on 13th February, 1993 under Article 204 of the Constitution read with rule 7(1), Order XXVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 calling upon you to appear before the Court on 20th February, 1993 for further processing of this case;
(5) AND WHEREAS during the proceedings before the Court today, the 21st February, 1993 Mr. Salman Mahmood, Reporter of the daily 'The Nation', Lahore who claims to have been present at 'Meet the Press' Programme on 4th February, 1993 has deposed that the report published in the daily 'The Nation' on 5th February, 1993 reproduced in para. 2 above accurately represented remarks made in the aforesaid programme and he produced his report marked as Exh.P.W.1/2;
(6) AND WHEREAS you refused to cross-examine Mr. Salman Mahmood on the plea that you had withdrawn from the proceedings;
(7) AND WHEREAS Dr. Masood Abdi, Editor of the daily The News' Lahore has also produced today the copy of the report Exh.P.W.2/1, submitted by Mr. Javed Rafique, who represented, the daily "The News" at the aforesaid meeting on 4th February, 1993;
(8) AND WHEREAS the said report is also to the similar effect as the report published in the daily 'The Nation' of 5th February, 1993, reproduced in para. 2 above;
(9) AND WHEREAS in the opinion of the Court the remarks made by you at 'Meet the Press'
13. Programme on 4th February, 1993 prima facie scandalize the Court and tend to bring the Court and the Judges of the Court into hatred, ridicule and contempt.
14. (10)YOU WERE therefore charged for gross contempt of this Court and you have already been given oral notice during the proceedings under Order XXVII, Rule 7(1). You having accepted the notice under Order XXVII, Rule 2 also started participating in the proceedings and in person cross- examined P.W.1 Salman Mahmood. Two more witnesses were also examined in your presence.
15. However, cross-examination was reserved on all the three witnesses.
16. (11)YOU ARE further required to appear again on 22-2-1993 at 9-30 a.m. Or soon thereafter as may be convenient to the Court in the Court House at Rawalpindi and to answer the charge and to show cause why you should not be committed for contempt of the Court. You should also file a written statement in answer to the charge against you and state whether you want to adduce evidence in your defence.
17. ' Rawalpindi, this the 21st day of February, 1993."
18. ' The case then stood adjourned to 22-2-1993 for further proceedings. On 22-2-1993, the respondent's counsel raised objection, that the service of contempt notice on his client was not proper as the cross-examination of witness Salman Mahmood was not completed but the Court overruled his objection and directed the respondent to file his reply to the contempt notice and adjourned the case to 1-3-1993.
19. ' On 1-3-1993, the respondent submitted a detailed reply to the contempt notice issued to him.
20. However, at the suggestion of some of the counsel appearing before the Court, the respondent was given another opportunity to file a further reply, if he so desired, to give expression to his attitude towards the Court. The respondent availing of this opportunity' filed the following two statements in Court which were taken on record:--- "(1) As to the respondent actually said on 4-2-1993, in answer to a question in the 'Meet the Press' at Lahore, was as follows:- ' I did try to convey to the Honourable Supreme Court that, we had given a solemn undertaking to the nation that elections to the National Assembly would be held according to the schedule already announced and that, therefore, it would be in the best interest of the nation that we stick to our promise and the said elections were allowed to be held accordingly.'
(2) This was said by him as far back as on 8-2-1993 in a Press Release published in the National Press on 9-2-1993 i,e,, before the receipt of the Confidential Letter of this Honourable Court (received on 20-2-1993).
(3) As explained already on more than one occasion, the answers at the `Meet the Press' in good faith in response to the questions. It was an occasion when truth came out without any pretension or motive to harm or damage the interest of any person or institution, and were not intended to scandalise the Court and to bring this Honourable Court and its Judges into hatred, ridicule or contempt."
21. ' The respondent is grateful to this Honourable Court for accepting his aforesaid statement.
(4) The respondent believes in institutions and not in individuals. He has the highest respect for all national institutions, and more particularly for the Supreme Court of Palestine as the highest Court of the country, which is a symbol of national sovereignty and integrity.
(5) At the relevant time, the respondent strongly felt that he was duty bound to convey the message to this Honourable Court on 5-10-1988. This course was considered necessary in view of various factors as mentioned in some detail in the earlier statement. At the relevant time there were several methods open to the respondent to convey his request. However, in his humble judgment, he chose what he thought was the most appropriate method under the peculiar prevalent circumstances.
22. ' The suggested alternative that respondent could have come to the Court as a citizen personally, would not, in the humble opinion of the respondent have been appropriate, since it would have certainly created a furor and it would have been grossly misunderstood, apart from the fact that it would have created a bad precedent, as the respondent was occupying the post of COAS at that critical juncture.
(6) The respondent is highly appreciative that the proceedings are concluding on a positive note, thus avoiding the possibility of an enlarged controversy which he was anxious to avoid from the very beginning of the proceedings, not only in the national interest but also in the interest of this august institution.
23. ' Finally, the respondent expresses his grateful thanks for the courtesy shown to him in today's proceedings, and wishes that this chapter should now stand closed with no hard feelings on either side." #TBS (2) #TBE "The respondent respectfully submits as under:
(1) What the respondent actually said on 4-2-1993, in answer to a question in the 'Meet the Press' at Lahore, was as follows:- ' I did try to convey to the Honourable Supreme Court that, we had given a solemn undertaking to the nation that elections to the National Assembly would be held according to the schedule already announced and that, therefore, it would be in the best interest of the nation that we stick to our promise and the said elections were allowed to be held accordingly.'
(2) This was clarified by him as far back as on 8-2-1993 in a Press Release published in the National Press on 9-2-1993 i,e,, before the receipt on 10-2-1993, of the Confidential Letter of this Honourable Court.
(3) As explained already on more than one occasion, the answers at the Meet the Press were given 'in good faith in response to the questions, without any pretension or motive to harm or damage the interest of any person or institution, and were not intended to scandalise the Court and to bring this Honourable Court and its Judges into hatred, ridicule or contempt'."
(4) The respondent believes in institutions and not in individuals. He has the highest respect for all national institutions, and more particularly for the Supreme Court of Pakistan as the Highest Court of the country, which is a symbol of national sovereignty and integrity.
(5) At the relevant time, the respondent strongly felt that he was duty bound to convey the message to this Honourable Court.On 5-10-1988.
24. ' This course was considered necessary in view of various factors as mentioned in some detail in the earlier statement. At the relevant time there were several methods open to the respondent to convey his request. However, in his humble judgment, he chose what he thought was the most appropriate method under the peculiar prevalent circumstances. The suggested alternative that respondent could have come to the Court as a citizen personally, since it would have certainly created a furore and it would have been grossly misunderstood, apart from the fact that it would have created a bad precedent, as the respondent was occupying the post of COAS at that critical juncture, and was a member of the Emergency Council.
(6) The respondent is highly appreciative that the proceedings are concluding on a positive note, thus avoiding the possibility of an enlarged controversy which he was anxious to avoid from the very beginning of the proceedings, not only in the national interest but also in the interest of this august institution.
(7) Finally, the respondent expresses his grateful thanks for the courtesy shown to him in today's proceedings, and submits that the regretful situation which arose after the event on 4th February, 1993 and any consequent embarrassment caused to this Honourable Court, is most unfortunate and is deeply regretted. The respondent never intended to scandalise this Honourable Court or to cause it any embarrassm ent. The respondent firmly believes in the supremacy of law, and that nobody is above the law. It is, therefore, requested that this Honourable Court be graciously pleased to accept this statement and may be pleased to close these proceedings."
25. ' The Court after considering the above statement of respondent adjourned the case for recording of the evidence of witnesses summoned by the Attorney-General in the case, to 2-3-1993. The recording of evidence of the witnesses summoned in the case including the statement of Mr. Wasim Sajjad, the Chairman of Senate, who had voluntarily appeared to record his statement with the permission of the Court, was completed between 2-3-1993 to 4-3-1993. After completion of evidence in the case as aforesaid, the Court heard some arguments in the case and then adjourned it to a date in office with direction to learned Attorney-General to submit his complete arguments in writing by 14-3-1993, and therefore, the respondent's counsel was required to submit his argument/reply by 21-3-1993.
26. ' The case was then taken up at Lahore on 27-3-1993, and after hearing the learned Attorney- General and the counsel for the respondent, the judgment was reserved. By a short order, dated 29-3-1993, I held the respondent guilty of contempt of Court and convicted him for the same.
27. However, on question of sentence I took the view that there were mitigating circumstances in the case, therefore, only a severe reprimand to respondent would serve the ends of justice in the case.
28. The following are the detail reasons for the short order, dated 29-3-1993.
29. ' There are two versions on record in the case about the statement of respondent which he made to the press at Lahore, during the programme "Meet the Press" on 4-2-1993. The first version is that, which is reported in almost all the leading daily newspapers of the country in their issue of 5th February, 1993. The second version of the statement of respondent is the one which he admits that he made before the press at Lahore, in the programme "Meet the Press" on 4-2-1993. For the purposes of the present proceedings we are keeping out of consideration the newspapers reports about the alleged statement of respondent made during the course of programme "Meet the Press" at Lahore on 4-2-1993, as the respondent has not admitted the contents of newspapers reports and the Honourable Chief Justice has also made the following observation in this regard in his judgment in the case:- "Before closing it needs to be clarified that this Court had taken cognizance of the present case under Order XXVII, Rule 7 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, in particular on the receipt of the statement dated 12-2-1993, submitted by the respondent to the Court. The factual question as to whether in addition to the said statement the respondent made any other graver statement on 4th February, 1993, has been the subject-matter of factual controversy of affirmation and denial from two respectable sides. Some evidence having been recorded it has not yet proved, conclusive.
30. Moreover, communications have been received by the Court with regard to the possible availability of the audio cassette tape, an enquiry regarding which has been entrusted to the Registrar of this Court. Till that aspect becomes absolutely clear it will not be proper nor expedient to continue to proceed any further, regarding that aspect of the case and the same is dropped. It is with a further clarification that if and when as a result of the aforementioned enquiry or otherwise more tangible material is brought before the Court it becomes necessary again to examine the expediency or propriety of taking action in the said aspect of the case, the Court may then pass such fresh order as may be deemed fit in accordance with the law. With these clarifications the proceedings in this Miscellaneous No,12 of 1993 stand concluded."
31. ' I am, therefore, here only concerned with the statement which the respondent admitted that he made to the press during the programme "Meet the Press" at Lahore on 4-2-1993. It is as follows:--- "I find that various versions of my statement have been published in the National Press of what I said, in answer to a question i,n 'Meet the Press' session at the Lahore Press Club on 4th of February, 1993. In order to put the record straight, I feel called upon to clarify, that, all that I said on that occasion was, that, I did try to convey to the Honourable Supreme Court that, we had given a solemn undertaking to the nation that elections to the National Assembly would be held according to the schedule already announced and that, therefore, it would be in the best interest of the nation that we stick to our promise and the said elections were allowed to be held accordingly. When further asked whether my action did not constitute 'Contempt of Court', my answer was, that I definitely did not think so, as the information was sought to be conveyed in good faith and in national interest."
32. ' The respondent throughout the proceedings of the case consistently maintained that he had made the above statement to the press on 4-2-1993 and he also reiterated this stand in his two additional statements, filed in the Court on 1-3-1993. The only point, therefore, which needs consideration here is, whether, the above statement of respondent amounted to contempt of this Court within the meanings of Article 204 of the Constitution. Article 204 of the Constitution reads as follows:- "204.-41) In this Article, 'Court' means the Supreme Court or a High Court.
(2) A Court shall have power to punish any person who--
(a) abuses, interferes with or obstructs the process of the Court in any way or disobeys any order of the Court;
(b) scandalizes the Court or otherwise does anything which tends to bring the Court or a Judge of the Court into hatred, ridicule or contempt;
(c) does anything which tends to prejudice the determination of a matter pending before the Court; or
(d) does any other thing which, by law, constitutes contempt of the Court.
(3) The exercise of the power conferred on a Court by this Article may be regulated by law and, subject to law, by rules made by the Court."
33. The respondent in his above statement admitted that he did try to convey to the Supreme Court that we had given .a solemn undertaking to the nation that elections to National Assembly would be held according to the schedule already announced and that therefore. It would be in the best interest of the nation that we stick to our promise and the said elections were allowed to be held accordingly. According to respondent the above message was attempted to be conveyed to the Supreme Court during the pendency of the case, Federation of Pakistan v. Haji Saifullah PLD 1989 SC 166 in order to avoid any decision of this Court which could jeopardise the holding of a general elections announced by the Government in 1988. The attempt on the part of respondent to convey the message to the Highest Court of country with a view to obtain a desired verdict was undoubtedly a very serious and grave act of contempt of the Court as it amounted to interference with the judicial process. This attempted act on the part of respondent is to be viewed with much more concern and seriousness as the respondent at the relevant time was A not only holding the post of COAS but was also a member of the Emergency Council constituted by the President of Pakistan after the incident of 17th August, 1988, in which late General Ziaul Haq died. The statement of respondent, therefore, is likely to create a greater adverse impact on the working and image of this Court in the public. This Court in the case of Sir Edward Snelson v. Judges of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore PLD 1961 SC 237 has stated the following broad principles in dealing with a libellous matter in a contempt of Court case:- "In considering libellous matter, certain principles are followed by the Court. One is that matter which is in its nature defamatory is presumed to be false until the contrary is shown to be the truth.
34. Another principle is that in construing the matter alleged to be defamatory, no mitigation of its natural meaning by construction is permissible. The words must be given their full, natural and ordinary meaning as a reasonable man of ordinary prudence would be likely to understand them.
35. They must be taken as a whole in their context and it should be clearly borne in mind that the slander and the damage consists in the apprehension of the hearer or other person to whom the libel is communicated. The meaning in which the words were intended by the author to be understood is immaterial. Again, words may be on the surface innocent, but they may carry a secondary or special sense regard being had to the occasion, to the quality of persons to whom they are addressed, and to the circumstances affecting their meaning. In such a special sense they may have a disparaging effect even though on a plain reading no defamation appears.
36. Therefore, to avoid the imputation of disparagement, it is clear that not only must the words in their natural and ordinary meaning be innocent, but there should be no secondary sense imported by circumstances which would bring them within the mischief of defamation.
37. ' The case is thus somewhat different from that of an accused person under the criminal law which presumes his innocence, and places the entire burden upon the accuser to establish his accusation. Here, the words by themselves place the onus upon the person charged, provided that they are prima facie defamatory, or special circumstances are shown, which give them a disparaging character. It can be easily seen that where the disparagement is of a High Court, this principle would require to be applied with even greater strictness than in the case of a private individual. That is because of the paramount importance which must be given by every organ of a civilized Government, in which the administration of justice is retained as an integral part of the machinery, to secure the Courts, and in particular the superior Courts of Record from all attempts to interfere with them in the administration of justice. The power of committal for contempt is given to such superior Courts in order that they may swiftly and summarily perform one of their most important duties which is to protect themselves against wilful disregard or disobedience of their authority, by visiting with prompt punishment any conduct which tends to bring their authority and the administration of justice into scorn or disregard. It is evident that a Court of Justice which has no power to vindicate its dignity or which having the power fails to perform the duty of vindicating its dignity would swiftly lose all hold upon the public respect and in consequence the maintenance of law and order through the agency of the Courts of Justice would be rendered impossible. The dignity and authority of the Courts has a link with the supremacy and majesty of the law. Any conduct which is calculated to diminish that dignity or authority is a criminal contempt which a Court is under duty to punish. The Courts of Justice are a creation of the sovereign authority, but their mainstay rests in the public confidence, and anything which is calculated to withdraw the public confidence from them has the character of a libel to be visited by action in contempt."
38. ' In the case of M. Inayat Khan v. M. Anwar PLD 1976 SC 354 this Court while reiterating the principles laid down in Sir Edward Snelson's case (supra) observed as follows:-- "We do not think that we can improve upon the statement of the law as contained in Sir Edward Snelson's case, except to re-emphasize and reiterate that any conduct which is calculated to diminish the dignity and authority of the Courts, and to impair public confidence in their independence, impartiality and integrity, constitutes contempt of the gravest kind. Imputing motives to Judges, and alleging, or even insinuating, that their judgments are inspired by extraneous considerations, like fear or favour of the executive, cannot, in any event, be regarded as fair and legitimate comment made in good faith and in the public interest on the working of the Courts."
39. Judged in the light of above discussion the statement of respondent made in a public gathering at Lahore Press Club on 4-2-1993, that he attempted to convey a message to the Supreme Court 4 years back, while it was hearing the case of Haji Saifullah (supra), with a view to impress upon the Court that its decision should not come in the way of holding of General Elections in the country, promised by the Government, undoubtedly amounted to scandalizing this Court and to bring the Court and its Judges into hatred and ridicule in the eyes of the people. The statement of respondent is very much suggestive that even the highest Court of the country could be influenced in its judgments by the persons in authority. The above statement of respondent is certainly fraught with potentials of creating doubts in the mind of common man about the role of this Court as an impartial and independent arbiter in disputes between individuals and the State. This could ultimately lead to the erosion of public confidence in the judicial process itself. It hardly need any reiteration here that in order to maintain peace, tranquillity and progress in society, the people must have unbending faith and confidence in the judicial process and the independence and impartiality of Courts. Any attempt or act from any person or quarter to tarnish this image of judiciary or to weaken the public faith and confidence in the judicial process, therefore, has to be curbed with firmness. The institutional supremacy of Courts has to be maintained and preserved for the good of society and its people. I, therefore, feel no hesitation in holding that the above statement of respondent which he admitted having made to the Press at Lahore during the programme "Meet the Press" on 4-2-1993, amounted to a grave act of the Contempt of this Court as it has all the attributes of scandalizing this Court and its Judges and to lower their images in the eye of public.
40. ' Having found the respondent guilty of Contempt of this Court the next question for consideration in the case is the sentence to be awarded to the contemner. The learned Attorney-General very candidly and fairly stated before us that although respondent is guilty of Contempt of this Court on the basis of his admitted statement, but he is entitled to be dealt with leniently, in view of several mitigating circumstances in the case. The learned Attorney-General pointed out that the above statement was made by the respondent long after the decision of Haji Saifullah's case (supra) by this Court. The learned Attorney-General further pointed out that Mr.. Wasim Sajjad, Chairman of the Senate, who voluntarily appeared with the permission of the Court, to record his statement in the case, and through whom respondent claimed to have sent the message to the Court, in his statement on oath before the Court, denied to have ever carried any message to this Court on behalf of respondent during the pendency of Haji Saifullah's case (supra). Mr. Wasim Sajjad also stated in his statement before the Court that during the discussion with the respondent when he visited G.H.Q., the latter had told him "it does not matter to him what decision is given by the Supreme Court as that was in the prerogative of the Court". According to learned Attorney-General, these circumstances show that the respondent had not tried to influence the judgment of this Court in Haji Saifullah's case (supra). The learned Attorney-General also invited our attention to the following passage in one of the two statements filed by respondent in the case on 1-3-1993:--- "that the regretful situation which arose after the event on 4-2-1993 and the consequent embarrassm ent caused to this Honourable Court, is most unfortunate and is deeply regretted. The respondent never intended to scandalize this Honourable Court or to cause it any embarrassment. The respondent firmly believes in the supremacy of law and that nobody, is above law."
41. ' The learned Attorney-General on the basis of the above facts and circumstances argued that the respondent has not shown any contumacy in his actions and has rather expressed his remorse for the same. The learned Attorney-General, accordingly, referred to the case of Inayat Khan v. M.
42. Anwar (supra) and contended that in similar circumstances this Court had only reprimanded the contemner.
43. ' Mr. Fakharduddin G. Ebrahim, the learned counsel for the respondent could not advance any argument to demonstrate that the above statement which the respondent admitted that he made to the Press at Lahore on 4th February, 1993, did not amount to Contempt of this Court.
44. ' Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to agree with the contention of learned Attorney-General that in view of the mitigating circumstances in the case a severe reprimand to respondent will meet the ends of justice in this case. It is ordered accordingly.
45. (Sd.)
46. ' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J ' ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J.--I agree.