' NASIM HASAN SHAH, C.J.---This Court, on 29th March, 1993, concluded the proceedings initiated against General (Retd.) Mirza Aslam Baig by an order passed in the following terms:-- "COURT ORDER ' By majority the proceeding against the respondent is concluded and he is discharged in view of the mitigating circumstances of the case though found guilty of contempt of this Court."
2. The opinion of the majority was expressed in the judgments of Mr. MA. Zullah, C.J. (as he then was) which was concurred with by Mr. Wali Muhammad Khan, J. And in the judgment of Nasim Hasan Shah, J. (as he then was). The other two learned Judges namely Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry, J.
And Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui J. Took a contrary view and held General (Retd.) Mirza Aslam Baig guilty of Contemp of Court and awarded him a severe reprimand.
3. In support of this Review Petition moved by General (Retd.) Mirza Aslam Baig, it is submitted that the order announced by the majority, while concluding the proceedings, appeared to be that they were simply ordering the dropping of proceedings initiated against General (Retd.) Mirza Aslam Baig. It further submitted that this very impression is also borne out by the terms of the judgments passed by the majority. However in the final formal order of the Court, issued under the title "Court Order", the respondent i,e, General (Retd.) Mirza Aslam Baig has been ordered to be discharged but at the same time has been found guilty of contempt. The last mentioned finding which has been recorded in the "Court Order", it is submitted, is contradictory to and inconsistent with the opinion of the majority and, therefore, requires to be corrected, through review.
4. There seems to be some force in these submissions. Thus in the judgments of Mr. MA. Zullah, C.J.
And Mr. Wali Muhammad Khan, J. It has been observed as follows: "In the light of the foregoing discussion we feel that when the respondent filed the statement dated 12-2-1993, in Court and when taking note thereof the other Bench of this Court earlier dealing with the case, made remarks which have rightly been taken as severe admonition and reprimand, in so far as the retrieving of the honour and dignity of the Court is concerned. The purpose and object of the law of contempt thus stood satisfied. Not only this, subsequently the respondent in his statements and conduct gave respect and high regard to the Court; by not only submitting to its directions and orders but also by accepting in writing various elements already analysed which can operate as mitigation in his favour."
' And again at page 16 of the judgment (page 34 of the Paper Book) it is stated as follows:-- "This very principle, it appears, was in the mind of the law-makers when the proviso to section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act was enacted. (Though it might be arguable whether it comes in conflict with the provisions contained in Article 204 of the Constitution or goes beyond the 'Regulation by law' permitted by the same Article). It provides that on being satisfied "that the accused, whether after defending himself or without offering any defence, has purged himself of the contempt of Court, the Court may discharge the accused or remit his sentence". With the earlier admonition and reprimand as already mentioned which was necessary and required in the circumstances and in the light of the foregoing discussion, we consider this case also fit for discharge. These proceedings are concluded with order accordingly."
5. Mr. Shahzad Jehangir learned counsel for General (Retd.) Mirza Aslam Baig has pointed out that the first portion of the Court order is reflective of the above findings. However the second part of the order wherein the respondent has been held guilty of contempt is inconsistent with the above finding and not borne out by any other part of the judgment.
6. Similarly in the judgment of Nasim Hasan Shah, J. (as he then was) it was observed as follows:-- "In the context of the present case, it must be remembered that in October, 1988, the public opinion was overwhelmingly in favour of general elections being held on party basis wherein the parties who had boycotted the general elections could participate, so that democracy could be fully restored in the country. This view was being expressed by almost all important political personalities. In fact, the above sentiments were fully in consonance with view of this Court, as expressed in a series of decisions rendered during this period. Under these decisions all legal impediments in the holding and conduct of fair and free elections were being struck down and removed. Thus, the registration clause in the Political Parties Act was declared void (Ms. Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1988 SC 416). The political parties were held entitled to allocation of a party symbol to enable them to effectively participate in the process of elections by judgment rendered on 2-10-1988 (PLD 1989 SC 66). The same views are reflected and re-interated in the judgment delivered in the case of Haji Saifullah decided on 5-10-1988. In my view, therefore, the statements made by the respondent all along that he was keen to see that the elections be allowed to be held on the scheduled dates can be accepted to have been made in public interest and in good faith. The said statements could not and did not influence the course of justice in the slightest degree. Hence, his statement made on 4-2-1993 during "Meet the Press Programme" that he was responsible for ensuring that elections were held on the scheduled dates may be relective of his own thinking on this issue, but did not have any influence whatever on the decision of the Court or on the due administration of justice. During the course of the proceedings, the Court made it amply clear that it disapproves the gratuitous remarks made during the "Meet the Press Programme" of 4th February, 1993. However, taking into account the expression of his deep regret at the embarrassm ent caused to the Court and the expression of the high esteem in which he holds the Court, it is neither expedient nor proper to continue these proceedings. I, therefore, agree with the learned Chief Justice that the contempt proceedings should be dropped, but would caution the respondent to be very careful in his utterances in relation to this Court and the proceedings taking place before it in future".
7. A perusal of the above parts of the judgments passed by the majority do indicate that General (Retd.) Mirza Aslam Baig was not found guilty of Contempt of Court by the majority. Hence, the protion of the "Court Order" namely, that "the respondent is discharged in view of the mitigating circumstances of the case though found guilty of contempt of this Court" does not correctly reflect the opinion of the majority and in consequence needs to be corrected. Accordingly we would accept this petition and review the "Court Order" dated 29-3-1993 and substitute the same with the following order:-- " COURT ORDER ' The majority is of the opinion that the proceedings against the respondent (General (Retd.) Mirza Aslam Baig) be droppe."
Order reviewed.