1. ' In this revision application applicant has challenged the order dated 31-10-1997 of learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (South) whereby he convicted and sentenced the applicant till rising of the Court and fine of Rs,5,000 or in case of non-payment to undergo R.I. For one month.
2. ' Briefly the facts of this case are that applicant, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of C.I.A. Police Garden, Karachi South received spy information that about five persons involved in fake currency are available at the bus stop near P.C. Government School, Cantt. Station, Karachi. He along with his other staff arrived at the bus stop and arrested Javaid Iqbal son of Muhammad Sher and Nisar Ahmed son of Rahimuddin whereas Faiz alias Abu Bakar, Mian Basit and Muhammad Bashir whose names were later on disclosed succeeded to run away. Upon physical search of accused Javaid Iqbal the fake currency note of 1,000 Pakistani denomination wrapped in white paper bearing No,G- 893371 and twenty counterfeit U.S. $100 Bills, were found from the right side pocket of his shirt.
3. Whereas from the possession of accused Nisar Ahmed twenty fake currency US $100 Bills were secured. Accused were arrested and Crime No,24 of 1997 was registered at Police Station Frere.
4. They were subsequently challaned under sections 489-B, 489-C and 120-B, P.P.C. The prosecution case further is that applicant deposited the said notes with Head Moharrer of said police station for safe custody and onward transmission to the Pakistan Security Printing Corporation for laboratory report about the fake currency. During proceedings of the case before Court of learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South applicant was directed to produce the laboratory report to which he replied that he has not received the same from laboratory and will produce on its receipt. It is further said that applicant had himself deposited the above currency with the Pakistan Security Printing Corporation on 30-10-1997 as the same were not sent by the head moharrer as such he received report from the said press on 6-11-1997 which declared the currency as forged.
5. ' Learned trial Court acquitted the above accused on 31-10-1997 under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Mainly for want of production of the said report. Learned Judge while acquitting the abovementioned accused observed that applicant Investigation Officer of the case had made false statement on 29-10-1997 and has said that he got the currency checked from the Pakistan Security Printing Press and after that such report was handed over to the Head Moharrar in March, 1997.
6. ' Learned Judge in his order has further mentioned that applicant did not produce said report but requested for some more time to produce the same and produced his letter dated 30-10-1997 written to the Press with regard to the report. On such statement applicant was issued a notice under section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act and it was on the same day viz. 31-10-1997 applicant without affording him any chance was found guilty of contempt of Court and was convicted and sentenced as above. It is contended by learned counsel for applicant that the entire exercise by giving notice under Contempt of Court Act and that of awarding conviction and sentence of fine to the applicant was done without hearing, on the same day without obtaining any explanation from him. He further argued that learned Judge has acted illegally while acquitting accused under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Who were involved in commission of above offence without waiting the report which declared the said currency as forged. He lastly submitted that applicant has never committed the offence under section 3 of Contempt of Court Act and conviction and sentence awarded may be set aside.
7. ' Mr. Jawed Akhtar learned counsel appearing on behalf of Advocate-General frankly conceded with the arguments and stated that applicant has not committed the offence and has no objection if revision application is allowed.
8. I have gone through the order dated 31-10-1997 passed under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. Acquitting the main accused involved in the transaction of fake currency and also the order whereby applicant is convicted under the Contempt of Court Act. Apparently, the order impugned in this revision is not sustainable in the eye of law for the reasons that firstly, it is not speaking one and secondly, that the same has been passed without hearing and learned Judge did not bother to wait till the report from Press was produced though such a request was made by applicant and there was absolutely no justification to turn down the same. If it is presumed that applicant has made false statement before the Court, then how an offence under section 3 of Contempt of Court will be attracted.
9. ' For proper appraisal reference to section 3 of Contempt of Court Act is made:-- "3. Innocent publication and distribution of matter not contempt.--(1) A person shall not be guilty of contempt of Court on the ground that he has published (whether by words spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise) any matter which interferes or tends to interfere with, or obstructs or tends to obstruct, the course of justice in connection with any civil or criminal proceedings pending at the time of publication, if at that time he had no reasonable grounds for believing that the proceeding was pending.
(2) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this act or any other law for the time being in force, the publication of any such matter as is mentioned in subsection (1) in connection with any civil or criminal proceeding which is not pending at the time of publication shall not be deemed to constitute contempt of Court.
(3) A person shall not be guilty of contempt of Court on the ground that he has distributed a publication containing any such matter as is mentioned in subsection (1), if at the time of distribution he had no reasonable grounds for believing that it contained or was likely to contain any such matter as aforesaid: ' Provided that this subsection shall not apply in respect of the distribution of--
(i) any publication which is a book or paper printed or published otherwise than in conformity with the rules contained in section 3 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (25 of 1867);
(ii) any publication which is a newspaper published otherwise than in conformity with the rules contained in section 5 of the said Act.
10. Explanation.--For the purposes of this section, a judicial proceeding---
(a) is said to be pending--
(A) in the case of a civil proceeding, when it is instituted by the filing of a plaint or otherwise;
(B) in the case of a criminal proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), or any other law--
(i) where it relates to the commission of an offence, when the charge-sheet or challan is filed, or when the Court issues summons or warrant, as the case may be, against the accused, and
(ii) in any other case, when the Court takes cognizance of the matter to which the proceeding relates, and in the case of a civil or criminal proceeding, shall be deemed to continue to be pending until it is heard and finally decided, that is to say, in a case where an appeal or revision is competent, until the appeal or revision is heard and finally decided or, where no appeal or revision is preferred, until the period of limitation prescribed for such appeal or revision has expired;
(b) which has been heard and finally decided shall not be deemed to be pending merely by reason of the fact that proceedings for the execution of the decree, order or sentence passed therein are pending."
11. From the perusal of the above provision of law I am of the considered opinion that none of its ingredients are attracted in this case. Even otherwise, if prima facie case under any of the provisions of Pakistan Criminal Code is either made out or likely to be made out the cognizance under Contempt of Court Act shall not be taken.
12. Offence of making. a false statement would be governed under section 193 of Pakistan Penal Code, which too in my opinion is not made out in this case. In the circumstances of the nature of offences, Trial Court was bound to wait till the arrival of report from press, as such request, in writing was made by the applicant. In view of the report declaring the currency as forged, the applicant, in any case, was not liable to be convicted and sentenced. The same is set aside and revision is allowed.
13. ' This is a fit case in which prosecution should file appeal against acquittal of the main accused.