' This order will dispose of Criminal Original Nos.176 and 211/W of 1995 as both the matters inter- related.
2. Mian Abuzar filed Writ Petition No,1782 of 1995 with the prayer that the act of conducting the raid on the petitioner's office and factory, malhandling the petitioner and taking away may be declared as without lawful authority. The interim relief prayed for was to the effect that Naseer Ahmed Bhatti and Maqbool Ahmed, Senior Investigating Officers may be directed to hand over the entire record to the petitioner alongwith blank signed papers.
3. This petition for the first time came up for hearing on 14-2-1995 on which date respondents 3 and 4 were directed to appear in person and in Civil Miscellaneous No,1 of 1995, the proceedings initiated by the respondents, were stayed till the next date of hearing, that is, 12-3-1995.
4. On 28-2-1995, the petitioner filed Criminal Original No,176/W of 1995 alleging that Naseer Ahmed, Maqbool Ahmed and Muhammad Fazil respondents 1 to 3, were threatening him and in utter disregard of the order of this Court, dated 14-2-1995 had written Letter No,467, dated 21-2-1995 to the petitioner with copy to Mr. Inayat Ali Chaudhary, Senior Investigating Officer, Lahore Circle 19, with the request to contact the author of the letter for obtaining the record enabling him to initiate proceedings against the party while observing the span of evasion, misstatements and preparing fictitious documents. Upon this petition, the O.S.D. (Judi.) of this Court was directed to convey the order telephonically to the Director of Intelligence and Investigation, Lahore to ensure the attendance of respondents in the contempt petition on 1-3-1995. The Income tax Officer/Senior Investigating Officer was also directed to appear. The matter was then taken up on 1-3-1995. On this date, Muhammad Fazil, respondent No,3 stated that he was directed to issue the Letter No,467, dated 21-2-1995 by Naseer Ahmed Bhatti to the concerned Income-tax Officer while Naseer Ahmed Bhatti refuted this assertion. Mr. Inayat Ali Chaudhary, Income-tax Officer who was also present in Court submitted that Letter No,467, dated 21-3-1995, though issued to him, has not been received.
5. At this juncture, it is worth mentioning that. On 22-2-1995, Umar Farooq, Deputy Director, on the complaint of Maqbool Ahmed, Senior Investigating Officer, wrote a letter to S.P. Model Town, Lahore with a copy to S.S.P., Lahore requesting that the S.H.O. Concerned be directed to apprehend the offenders, Abuzar, and his accomplices.
6. In view of contradictory statements respondents in Criminal Original No,176/W of 1995, a bailiff was deputed to accompany the respondents to bring all the record which, as stated by respondents was lying in Gulberg Office. The record was ordered to be produced on the same day.
According to the report of the bailiff, the record was found lying in two cars, one of which was official (IDA/7105) while the other was that of Syed Najaf Hussain Shah, Advocate.
7. In view of contradictory statements made by respondents in the Court, the matter was ordered to be brought to the notice of the Chairman, Central Board of Revenue who was to depute a senior officer to attend the Court. The respondents were also directed to submit their reply for making false statements in the face of the Court. The respondents accordingly filed their reply through Syed Najaf Hussain Shah, Advocate on 9-3-1995, and stated in clear terms, in reply to para. 3 of the contempt petition that they did not have any knowledge of the stay order issued by this Court on 14-2-1995 and they for the first time came to know of it on 25-2-1995.
8. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides and also the respondents. I have also gone through the reply submitted by respondents carefully with the able assistance of Syed Najaf Hussain Shah, Advocate.
9. The crucial question involved in this matter is as to whether Naseer Ahmad Bhatti, Maqbool Ahmed and Muhammad Fazil were aware of the order of status quo or not passed on 14-2-1995.
The answer to this question is clear from the reply submitted by the respondents in Civdil Miscellaneous No,1 of 1995. It was alleged in this application that after passing of order dated 14-2- 1995, Maqbool Ahmed, respondent No,2 directed the applicant/writ petitioner to see him at his residence; no sooner the applicant entered into the house of respondent No,2, he was taken with odd hands and ultimately, the applicant feeling afraid came to Police Station Township where respondent No,2 also followed; both the parties narrated their respective grievances; the applicant told to the officer sitting in the police station that stay order against the respondents has been issued. According to the writ petition, the respondents came to know of the stay order passed by this Court in the presence of Police Officer/Officials. This incident was alleged to have taken place on 19-2-1995. The reply to Para.3 of Civil Miscellaneous No,1 of 1995 may advantageously be reproduced which reads as under:-- "That the contents of paragraph 3 of the application are denied being false, vexatious, untrue, tainted with mala fides and have been asserted to prejudice the proceedings and to harass the Answering Respondents in addition to filing in the lacunas in the case. The factual position is that the petitioner was seen taking pictures of the house and the family members including ladies of the Answering respondent No,2. The petitioner was requested to refrain from taking pictures and harassing the Answering Respondent No,2 and his family but the failure/refusal of the petitioner from restraining to take photographs led to the involvement of the local police. At the local police station no action was taken against the petitioner on his statement that he was taking pictures of the house in which the respondent No,2 resided because he liked the design thereof and wanted to construct a similar house for himself."
10. Without going into any other question as to what type/design of bungalow has been constructed by Maqbool Ahmed, respondent No,2, being a low paid employee of which Abuzar, petitioner, took photographs for construction of a bungalow, specially, when it is the case of respondent department that the petitioner is owner of an industrial concern and to evade payment of taxes in lacs, one thing is established beyond any doubt that Maqbool Ahmed, respondent No,2 came to know of passing of stay order (14-2-1995) by this Court on 19-2-1995 as is evident from the words used in para. 3 of reply to Civil Miscellaneous No,1 of 1995 "the failure/refusal of the petitioner from restraining to take photographs led to the involvement of the local police".
11. The involvement of the local police and knowledge of stay order on 19-2-1995 finds further support from the Letter No,131-1-1/Ex/Legal Notice/94/476, dated 22-2-1995 written by Mr. Umar Farooq, Deputy Director to the S.P. Model Town Lahore to intervene into the issue, take the S.H.O. To task and to apprehend the offenders. The story put up in this letter was that Abuzar owner of the unit alongwith armed accomplices raided the house of Maqbool Ahmed in the evening on 20-2- 1995; his family was harassed in most disgraceful manner and the family members of Maqbool Ahmed apprehended the culprits and took them to Police Station Township. The story put up in reply to , para.3 of Civil Miscellaneous No,1 of 1995 whereby the petitioner requested the Court to summon the S.H.O. Of Police Station Township to unveil the truth, is that Abuzar was seen taking pictures of the house and the family .Members including ladies of Maqbool Ahmed. There is no mention that Abuzar ever raided the house of Maqbool alongwith armed men, harassed and the family members apprehended the culprits. Nothing has been brought on record as to what action was taken by the police of Township when the culprits were apprehended.
12. Further while submitting reply to Criminal Original 454/W of 1995, Mr. Umar Farooq, Deputy Director, author of letter, dated 22-2-1995 written to the S.P. Model Town, stated in para. 7 that Mr. Maqbool Ahmed had complained that his own life and that of his family members was in danger and the answering respondent accordingly informed the Police Officer.
13. Next is also the Letter No,467, dated 21-2-1995 written by Muhammad Fazil, Senior Investigating officer to Messrs Abuzar, petitioner, with a copy to Mr. Inayat Ali Chaudhary, Income-tax Officer to initiate proceedings against the party, that is, writ petitioner. On 1-3-1995. Muhammad Fazil, S.I.O.
Stated in the face of the Court that he was directed to issue the letter by Naseer Ahmed Bhatti to the concerned Income-tax Officer while Naseer Ahmed refuted the assertion. Mr. Inayat Ali Chaudhary, Income-tax Officer present in Court on the said date in the presence of Fazil and Naseer stated that he has not received any letter. It is important to note that the letter written on 21-2-1995 was received by the petitioner at the most on 27-2-1995 when he filed the contempt petition while till 1st March, 1995 copy of the letter had not been received by the Income-tax Officer.
This fact alone shows the mala fide and the collusion of Maqbool Ahmed, Naseer Ahmed Bhatti and Muhammad Fazil.
14. It is also noteable that record of the petitioner factory was snatched on 21-12-1994 under the provisions of section 37 of the Sales Tax Act but the matter remained pending, no action was taken even by the Investigating Officer or by the Income-tax Officer. The trouble starts from filing of the writ petition and passing order, dated 14-2-1995. The letter written to the Income-tax Officer receipt of which by him is still under dispute, is dated 21-2-1995 while to the S.P. On 22-2-1995.
15. These are all the facts to establish that the respondents were aware of stay order on 19-2-1995 when the alleged occurrence of taking photographs and raiding of house of Maqbool Ahmed took place.
16. The factum of making false statements in the face of Court is also established from the report of the bailiff, dated 1-3-1995 as according to respondents the record was lying in Gulberg Office whereas factually the record was recovered from a vehicle parked within the premises of High Court and also in the car of Syed Najaf Hussain Shah, Advocate parked in front of his office.
17. From what has been discussed above, the conclusion is irresistible that all the three respondents have interfered with and obstructed the process of this Court within the contemplation of Article 204(2)(a) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Consequently, the respondents are convicted for having committed contempt of Court within the meaning of Article 204 of the Constitution and are sentenced to a term of six months imprisonment conjunctively with a fine of Rs,5,000 each. They shall be taken into custody to undergo the sentence awarded to them.
18. Before parting it may be observed that the fatters qua quantum of sentence contemplated by section 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1976 have no bearing on the inherent powers of this Court enshrined in Article referred supra envisaging sentence upto actual physical life of the contemner unless purged earlier to the satisfaction of the Court.