' CH. KHURSHID AHMAD, J.--- The appellant was proceeded against for committing the contempt of Court on 5-4-1989 when Writ Petition No,416 of 1989, filed by Rana Muhammad Akram challenging the validity of elections of Students' Union held on 9-3-1989 came up for hearing before Mr. Justice (Retd.) Sh. Khizar Hayat. The matter before the Court on the said date was regarding interim relief claimed i,e, to restrain the respondents (returned candidates of the students' union) from acting as office-bearers. Mian Abbas Ahmad, Advocate, the appellant appeared on behalf of the petitioner whereas Ch. Muhammad Qasim, Acting Principal of the College, respondent No,1 also appeared.
The interim relief was refused and the writ petition was fixed for final hearing. The appellant requested for some immediate actual date to which the Honourable Judge was not agreeable and the appellant adopted disrespectful attitude towards the Honourable Judge; addressed in loud voice imputed partiality calculated to scandalize and bring the Court into disrepute. Notice to show cause, was issued to the appellant.
2. The appellant availed seven days' time but written reply was not filed whereupon another adjournment for seven days was allowed. On 19-4-1989 the appellant made an application under section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 praying that the case be sent to the Honorable Chief Justice of this Court for taking further action as provided in the said section. Notice was issued to the learned Additional Advocate-General for the same date and the petition was dismissed on the ground that the Honorable Judge had the jurisdiction to try the appellant/contemnor. Hearing was resumed and the appellant was required to produce oral or written evidence whereupon request for adjournment was made to seek remedy against the order passed on the application under section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976. Adjournment was requested till after Eid-ul-Fitar for engaging a counsel to defend him. As the case had been adjourned thrice earlier the Honourable Judge did not entertain the same and refused to adjourn. The appellant declined to supplementary statement of 12-4-1989. The Honourable Judge offered to adjourn the proceedings for a few hours if the appellant wanted to prepare the arguments whereupon the appellant submitted that he had nothing more to add.
3. The appellant had, on refusal by the Honorable Judge to fix an early and actual date in Writ Petition No,416 of 1989 adopted disrespectful attitude and remarked that the Honorable Judge was favoring the respondents by not fixing the case for an actual date as they belong to Jamat-e- Islami. The appellant persisted though he was cautioned. When the Honorable Judge started dictating the order for issuing him the notice for commission of contempt of Court the appellant interrupted. The appellant did not deny the allegations in his statement made on 12-4-1989 till 23- 4-1989 when he argued his application under section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976. The appellant had not denied the incident .A nor the manner in which it took place and thereby, indirectly, admitted the utterance made by him calculated to imputing partiality to the Honorable Judge. "Partiality" according to the Honourable Judge was another name of unjustness and unfairness and so the utterances made by the appellant were considered to be in the nature of scandalization of the highest order and invective of gravest type hurled on Court. The appellant who was an Advocate of the High Court and a Member of the Punjab Bar Council was taken to be well aware of the practice and mannerism in law and repetition of contemptuous and scandalous utterances in the circumstances were taken to have been made/done intentionally.
4. In his statement made by the appellant on 12-4-1989 the Honourable Judge noted specifically:-- "If, however, my utterances are taken as calculated to contempt of Court then I am extremely sorry for that."
' The Honorable Judge was of the view that the appellant had not sincerely regretted his doings and had not expressed his resolution not to repeat such utterances in future and thus .Apologetic part of his statement was not considered worth acceptance. The Honourable Judge quoted A.K.M.A. Awal's 4 case PLD 1964 SC 256 and held the appellant guilty of contempt of Court on three counts. He was not considered to be entitled to any leniency in the award of sentence and according to the judgment, deserved to the deterrent punishment. The appellant was sentenced to six months' S.I. On each count and to pay fine of Rs,5,000 on each count and in default of payment of fine to undergo further three months' simple imprisonment on each count.
5. At the call of the appeal the appellant appeared in person and tendered written unconditional apology in his own hand. The same has been placed on the file.
6. The Court room was almost packed with the Members of the High Court Bar Association, Multan Bench and its office-bearers. The office-bearers of the District Bar Association were also amongst them.
7. In view of the unconditional written apology tendered and filed by the appellant in Court the Honourable' members of the Bar appearing on behalf of the appellant prayed that sufficient repentance has been shown by the appellant and that in view of the fact that he had tendered unconditional apology for the charges under which he was convicted, the appeal may be considered and decided in that context. The appellant who was present in person, placed himself at the mercy of the Court in the open Court and expressed words of repentance and remorse. An unconditional apology coming from a Member of the Bar who was also Member of Punjab Bar Council sufficiently shows his repentance and in view of the above, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice have been secured sufficiently.
7. In view of the above unconditional apology of the appellant is accepted.
' Resultantly appeal succeeds.
8. In view of the repentance of the appellant and his tendering of unconditional apology the judgment of conviction recorded against the appellant on 23-4-1989 is recalled.