1. ' The facts relevant for the disposal of three contempt petitions viz. Criminal Original Nos.21, 23 and 28 of 1994 are that on 20-2-1994, Purmal filed Criminal Miscellaneous No,118/H of 1994, against Abdul Rehman Wattoo Inspector and S.H.O. Police Station, Hujra Shah Muqeem for the recovery of Hassan Khan and Elahi from the illegal detention of the said respondents, vide order of this Court dated 21-2-1994, a bailiff was deputed to recover the detenus. On 22-2-1994, the bailiff submitted his report wherein he stated that the detenus could not be recovered. On the same day, statement of Abdul Rehman Wattoo was also recorded who deposed that neither the detenus were accused in any case of his police station nor he summoned them. The said petition was, therefore, dismissed.
2. Again on 27-2-1994, Purmal Khan filed Criminal Miscellaneous No,133/H of 1994 against Abdul Rehman Wattoo Inspector, this time, of course, for the recovery of Abdul Majid, Hassan Khan, Muhammad Akram and Ghulam Rasul. Vide order of even date, a bailiff was again deputed to recover the alleged detenus. The bailiff submitted his report on 28-2-1994, wherein he deposed that the detenus could not be found in the premises of the police station. However, on the information supplied by Purmal Khan, he raided a house meant for residence of police personnel adjacent to Police Station Hujra Shah Muqeem. The detents were found to have been detained in that house, which was locked from outside. The bailiff broke open the door and found the four detenus there. In this process, one of the police personnel snatched the F.I.R. Register and the Daily Diary of the police station from the Bailiff and other police personnel managed to slip away from the scene with the detenus. On that date after perusing the report of the bailiff and recording his statement and also the statements of Abdul Rehman Wattoo and Purmal Khan petitioner, notice was issued to Abdul Rehman Wattoo Inspector under the Contempt of Court Act. It was registered as Criminal Original No,21 of 1994. At the same time, S.P. Okara was directed to probe into the matter and also arrange identification of police personnel by the bailiff, who created hindrance in the execution of the order of this Court and the case was adjourned to 9-3-1994. On the adjourned date, after recording the statement of the bailiff, it appeared that Khadim Hussain H.C. Shafique Ahmad Constable, Ghulam Sarwar Head Constable, Muhammad Idrees and Sarfraz Constables, prima facie, participated in the proceedings which led to the interference and obstruction in the execution of this Court's order. Accordingly, show cause notices were also issued against them under the Contempt of Court Act. On that date, statement of Hassan Khan, one of the detenus, was also recorded, who deposed that Muhammad Aslam, A.S.I., Abbas and Niaz constables removed them from the place of their detention. Notices were also issued against them under the Contempt of Court Act, with the direction to appear before this Court on 30-3-1994. This was registered as Criminal Original No,23 of 1994. On 30-3-1994, the S.P. Okara, sent a copy of the inquiry report conducted by the D.S.P., who concluded that apart from Muhammad Aslam, A.S.I., Muhammad Abbas FC No,131 and Niaz Ahmad F.C. No,439, Ali Hussain Shah, A.S.I., Maqbool Ahmad, A.S.I., Abdul Rauf FC No,173 and Muhammad Bashir FC No,455 too caused hindrance in the execution of the order of this Court hence notice under the Contempt of Court Act was also issued against Ali Hussain Shah, A.S.I., Maqbool Ahmad, A.S.I., Abdul Rauf FC and Muhammad Bashir FC. This was registered as Criminal Original No,28 of 1994. The case was then adjourned to 6-4-1994. After perusing the respective replies of the contemnors, they were charge-sheeted on 6-4-1994 and their statements were recorded without oath. All the contemnors gave one and the same reply to question No,2 'do you plead guilty to the charge or not', which reads:--- "I plead guilty to the charge, tender unqualified apology and throw myself at the mercy of the Court. I really repent and assure this Court that throughout my service I will not show disrespect to the orders of this Court and request that this time I may be forgiven."
2. ' Thereafter, the case was adjourned for today i,e, 24-4-1994 for arguments on the question of quantum of sentence only.
3. Abdul Rehman Wattoo, respondent is represented by Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chauhan, Advocate, Khadim Hussain H.C. Shafique Ahmad FC, Ghulam Sarwar HC, Muhammad Idrees Naib- Moharrir, and Sarfraz Hussain FC are represented by Khan Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate, and Ali Hussain Shah, ASI, Maqbool Ahmad ASI, Muhammad Aslam ASI and Abdul Rauf FC are represented by Shabbir Raza Rizvi, Advocate, whereas Muhammad Bashir, Abbas and Niaz Ahmad FCs.
3. Appeared in person. The unrepresented respondents to a Court question simply requested for pardon. However, learned counsel for the remaining respondents argued the case on behalf of their respective clients. They submitted vehemently that the respondents have tendered unqualified apology at the earliest opportunity and in view of proviso to section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, their unconditional apology be taken into consideration while awarding sentence to them. They relied on the following case-law to contend that by accepting their apology, they may be forgiven for the lapse on their part:---
(1) PLD 1985 Lah.
4. 400.
(2) PLD 1973 SC 525.
(3) 1986 PCr.LJ 1977 and 1375.
(4) 1987 PCr.LJ 452.
(5) 1991 PCr.LJ 629.
(6) 1989 M LD 320.
(7) 1990 SCM R 215
4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer (Prosecutor) submitted that Abdul Rehman Wattoo has not submitted unqualified apology at the earliest opportunity; rather he tried to contest this notice and took up the plea that he has neither violated the order of this Court nor he tried to create hindrance in the execution/implementation of this Court's order dated 27-2-1994. However, at a belated stage when he realized that there is sufficient evidence against him on the record in the shape of report of the bailiff, statement of Hassan Khan detenu coupled with the inquiry report of the D.S.P. Conducted under the orders of the S.P. Okara and he cannot wriggle out of it, he pleaded guilty to the charge. He next contended that there is no general rule to accept unconditional apology blindly. The Court has to see the gravity of the offence committed by the contemner and secureness on his part and thereafter this Court has to keep in mind whether unconditional apology would promote the purpose of administration of justice or not. If the unqualified apology is tendered for the time being just to save his skin, then maximum punishment should be awarded to the contemners. Placed reliance on PLD 1963 Pesh.
5. 195.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, critically examined their respective submissions and have perused the case-law, referred to above.
6. ' There is no cavil with this proposition of law that unqualified apology, if sincere, would always be a defence as well as a mitigating circumstance, while considering the quantum of sentence to be awarded to a contemnor. Before embarking on this discussion, I would like to refer to section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act and its proviso, which lays down that unconditional apology, is to be taken into consideration along with other relevant facts. The word "apology" means a formal acknowledgement of error, offence or incivility. Originally a justification or defence.
6. The crucial point for decision in this case is what type of contempt has been committed by the respondents, who are police personnel and whose bounden duty is to observe the command of law and to assist the Court in the execution of its orders. In the present case, I fmd that the respondents have committed gravest type of contempt of this Court as they not only showed disrespect to the order of this Court but also created hindrance in its execution and thereby showed disrespect to the authority of this Court. Instead of rendering help to the bailiff of this Court in the performance of his duty for the recovery of the alleged detenus, they snatched the daily diary register as well as the F.I.R. Register from the bailiff, per force, which were taken into possession by him in order to verify whether the detenus are in the illegal or lawful detention of the police. When the bailiff learnt that the detenus are being kept in the adjacent house which was on rent with Muhammad Abbas FC contemner, they under the command of Abdul Rehman Wattoo immediately removed those detenus from there in order to frustrate the execution of the order of this Court and thus they committed gross contempt of this Court. No doubt, unconditional apology, if made sincerely, is a good defence, but in the present case, the S.H.O. Abdul Rehman Wattoo made incorrect statement before this Court on 22-2-1994 by stating that neither the detenus were arrested by him nor they were required by him, knowing fully that those detenus were prima facie in his illegal custody. Similarly, when for the second time, the bailiff raided the police station in pursuance of order dated 27-2-1994, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No,133/H of 1994, he on 28- 2-1994, in his statement adhered to his previous statement and denied the factum of snatching of daily diary and F.I.R. Register and thus created interference in the execution of order of this Court. It is at a belated stage that he realised his position that there is overwhelming evidence against him in the shape of report of the bailiff, report of the D.S.P. CIA Okara, who conducted the inquiry as directed by the S.P. Coupled with the statement of Hassan Khan detenu and then he pleaded guilty to the charge. Similar is the case with respect to the other respondents, who tendered unconditional apology. Thus considering their unconditional apology, I take a lenient view and while convicting the contemners under section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act, award them sentences under section 4 ibid as under:--- (1)
7. ' Three months' S.I. Plus fine of Rs,1,000 (one thousand only) or in default fifteen days S.I.
(2) Khadim Hussain. Head Constable.
8. ' Two months' S.I. Plus fine of Rs,500 (five hundred only) or in default ten days' S.I.
9. ' They be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve out the sentences imposed upon them.
(3) Shafique Ahmad.
10. ' Fine of Rs,500 (five hundred only) or in default seven days' S.I.
11. (4)
12. ' Fine of Rs,1,000 (one thousand only) or in default ten days' S.I.
(5) Muhammad Idrees. Naib-Moharrir, ' Fine of Rs,1,000 (one thousand only) or in default ten days' S.I.
(6) Sarfraz Hussain. F,C, ' fine of Rs,500 (five hundred only) or in default seven days' S.I.
(7) Muhammad Aslam. A.S.I.
13. ' Sentence till the rising of Court and fine of Rs,2,000 (two thousand only) or in default fifteen days'
14. S.I.
(8) Ali Hussain Shah, A.S.I.
15. ' Fine of Rs,2,000 (two thousand only) or in default fifteen days' S.I.
(9) Maqbool Ahmad, A.S.I.
16. ' Fine of Rs,2,000 (two thousand only) or in default fifteen days' S.I.
(10) Abdul Raid. F.C.
17. ' Fine of Rs,500 (five hundred only) or in default ten days' S.I.
(11) Muhammad Abbas. F.C.
18. ' Sentence till the rising of Court and fine of Rs,700 (seven hundred only) or in default fifteen days'
19. S.I.
20. (12).Niaz. F.C.
21. ' Fine of Rs,500 or in default seven days' S.I.
22. (13)Muhammad Bashir. F.C.
23. ' Fine of Rs,500 (five hundred only) or in default seven days' S.I.
24. ' The contemners at Nos.3 to 13 are allowed one month's time to deposit the amount of fine in the Treasury, failing which, the S.P. Okara, will cause their arrest and send them to jail to serve out the sentences in lieu thereof.