' RAJA FAYYAZ AHMAD, J.--- This appeal under section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 has been preferred against the judgment and order passed by the Honourable Single Bench of this Court whereby the appellant was found guilty for the offence of under section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 and accordingly sentenced to six months' S.I., with a fine of Rs,5,000 and in default of payment of fine ordered to further undergo S.I. For a period of one and a half months.
2. The stated facts of the case in brief are to the effect that on 10th December, 1997 Sessions Judge (Inspection) placed a report before Honourable Chief Justice that a News Paper Daily "Lashkar", Lahore, containing derogatory headline has been published on 28th November, 1997 which not only is completely false but also amounts to scandalize and disrepute the Judges and the Institution, as a whole. The substance of the objected headline was also noted in such report. On such report the Honourable Chief Justice, passed the following order:-- "The very headline of the news prima facie appears to scandalize and to bring disrepute to the Court. For further action matter be placed before Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary."
3. On receipt of file and perusal of the objected caption of the aforementioned Newspaper the Honourable Judge Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry directed in chambers on 10-12-1997, to register this case as petition for "Contempt of Court" because the caption of the Newspaper "Lashkar" reveals that to scandalize the Judges in order to lower their status, a false and baseless news with the headline which may create sensation in the general public has been published. The learned Judge seized of the matter on 10-12-1997 passed the following order in Court:- "A perusal of the caption/title of Daily Lashkar, Lahore, revealed that the News Item was published on 28-11-1997, to scandalize the Judges of this Court, in order to lower their status and disrepute the Judiciary, as a whole, basing a false and incorrect material. It further indicated that news was reported by Munir Ahmad, Bureau Chief.
' Mr. K.N. Kohli, Advocate who is present in Court stated that Newspaper Daily Lashkar is also published from Quetta.
' Before issuing notices for the Editors/publishers of Daily Lashkar, Lahore, I deem it proper to summon the Bureau Chief, Munir Ahmad of Daily Lashkar, Lahore stationed at Quetta, so he may furnish further information for issuing of notices and action.
' S.H.O., Bijli Road Police Station is directed to effect service and produce him before the Court on 12- 12-1997."
4. Pursuant to the above directions Munir Ahmad claiming himself to be Bureau Chief of Daily "Lashkar" appeared on 12-12-1997 before the Honourable Judge and stated that Sheikh Iftikhar Adil (appellant) son of Sheikh Mukhtar Ahmad resident of B-27, Temple Road, Lahore, is the Editor-in- Chief/publisher and printer of the Newspaper. Munir Ahmad the Bureau Chief for Balochistan filed an application before the learned Judge offering explanation that he had despatched a news item to the Daily Lashkar, Lahore through its Editor-in-Chief but in such communication despatched by him, it was not mentioned that any F.I.R. Has been registered against the Judges of this Court and according to him objectionable heading in the title of the news printed by the Editor-in-Chief. The Bureau Chief, Munir Ahmad alongwith his application filed extract/contents of news sent by him to his Head Office at Lahore for publication alongwith the news item published in the newspaper which according to him he had obtained from the Head Officer on Fax yesterday i,e, 11-12-1997.
' On having received the abovenoted details/particulars of the Editor, Publisher and Printer; the Honourable Judge came to the conclusion that the offending material published in Daily Lashkar, Lahore, dated 28-11-1997 amounts to scandalize the Judges of this Court in order to lower their status and also to disrepute the Judiciary as a whole; consequently in the opinion of the learned Judge, the Editor-in-Chief, publisher, printer as well as the Bureau Chief, Munir Ahmad were prima facie liable for action under section 3/4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976. Therefore, notices were ordered to be issued to them to explain, as why they should not be dealt with under relevant provision of Law.
' Sheikh Iftikhar Adil (appellant), Editor-in-Chief of Daily Lashkar, Lahore pursuant to show-cause notice issued to him, on 15-12-1997 appeared before the Honourable Judge and filed reply of the notice wherein he tendered unconditional apology and placed himself at the mercy of the Court who further explained that Chief News Editor, Irfan Ehsan committed commission in publishing the objectionable News item in "supplement" Daily Lashkar, Lahore, dated 28-11-1997. Both the replies filed by the appellant and Bureau Chief, Munir Ahmad were not found satisfactory and the matter was fixed for charge on 16-12-1997. On the date fixed charge-sheet alongwith the statement of allegations separately prepared were given to the Editor-in-Chief, Sh. Iftikhar Adil and Bureau Chief, Daily Lashkar at Quetta who were directed to submit reply, if any, and also to furnish the list of witnesses they intend to produce in support of their plea alongwith the reply. It may be noted that Irfan-ul-Haq son of Ehsan-ul-Haq resident of Lahore Ex-Chief News Editor Daily Lashkar, Lahore was produced by the appellant/contemner in pursuance of order of the Honourable Judge, dated 28- 11-1997; who on his own filed an application wherein he admitted and accepted the objected news item appeared in Daily Lashkar (Lahore) "supplement", dated 28-11-1997 to have been issued by him and tendered unconditional apology. In order to meet with the requirements of law, notice was issued to him by the learned Judge under section 3/4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 to explain as to why he should not be punished for publishing highly offending news item, dated 28-11-1997 scandalizing Judges of this Court, in order to lower their status and disrepute the Judiciary as a whole.
' On such date, the appellant Sh. Iftikhar Adil, Editor-in-Chief placed on record photo copy of the declaration of Daily "Lashkar", Lahore. The appellant on 19-12-1997 submitted reply to the charge- sheet wherein he tendered apology, however; explained reasons which culminated eventually into the publication of objectionable material in Daily "Lashkar" (supplement), Lahore dated 28-11-1997.
Likewise Malik Munir Ahmad, Daily Lashkar, Lahore, Bureau Chief stationed at Quetta filed his reply thereby tendering unconditional apology and reply to show-cause notice was also filed by Irfanul Haq, Chief News Editor, which was also found by the Honourable Judge to be unsatisfactory; accordingly charge-sheet alongwith the statement of allegations were handed over to Irfanul Haq for reply; who filed his reply to the charge-sheet and statement of allegations before the learned Judge on 23-12-1997, tendering unconditional apology. Since the contemner had accepted their liability and prayed to be pardoned by tendering unconditional apology, therefore, the learned Judge did not deem it fit to record evidence and heard the Additional Advocate-General and the contemners. Finally the Honourable Judge vide impugned judgment, dated 26-12-1997 convicted i,e, Sheikh Iftikhar Adil (correct name as Sheikh Iftikhar Ali) and Irfanul Haq, the Editor-in-Chief and Chief News Editor respectively by sentencing them each to suffer S.I. For six months with fine of Rs,5,000 and in default of fine to further undergo S.I. For one and a half months each, whereas; Bureau Chief, Malik Munir Ahmad acquitted of the charge, for the reason mentioned in the impugned judgment.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Ashtar Ausaf Ali and Mr. Noor Muhammad Achakzai, Additional Advocate-General at length.
' The learned counsel for the appellant at the very out set of his submissions, contended that he does not contest the case on merits and frankly submitted that in such like matter a counsel owes his prime duty to uphold the dignity and honour of Court and with all respects and heavy heart for the wrong done which cannot be remedied, he does not hold a brief to be argued but simultaneously with all grace and indulgence of the Court, he pursuant to the unconditional apology tendered by the appellant which the learned counsel reaffirmed, submitted that:--
(a) By tendering unconditional apology, the appellant has thrown himself at the mercy of Court and referred to the contents of such tendered apology.
(b) Prayed for mercy and through unconditional apology tendered by the appellant; needs the sagacity, compassion, forgiveness and benevolence of the Court in the light of canons of justice.
The remorse, repentance on the part of the appellant; though cannot be a fraction of any remedy to the wrong done, yet could be considered and taken as redeeming and mitigating circumstances in appealing to the parental jurisdiction and conscience of the Court to be pardoned; which is more apt to the Injunctions of 'Holy Qur'an' to forgive/pardon.
(c) The appellant no sooner learnt about the objectionable leading/headline of news, removed the News Editor-in-Chief through ' fax' while he was at Rawalpindi at the relevant time, who made clean breast of his responsibility and did not contest the proceedings and threw himself at the mercy of the Honourable Court, seeking unconditional apology.
(d) Severe reprimand in view of the above facts and reasons would meet the ends of justice and the learned counsel placed reliance on the reported judgments i,e, ' Habibul Wahab Elkheri v. Khan Abdul Wali Khan PLD 1978 SC 85, PLD 1994 SC 574 and Sh. Zahoor Ahmad v. Sher Ali and others 1977 PCr.LJ 852.
' The learned Additional Advocate-General Mr. Noor Muhammad Achakzai contended that the publication of supplement of the Newspaper containing highly scandalizing leading/headline exposed the guilty mind of the contemners who deserve no leniency. According to the learned Additional Advocate-General tendering unconditional apology or expressing remorse under no circumstances in such like serious matter left no exception for the contemner. He placed reliance on NLR 1980 (Cr') 722 and NLR 1980 (CrL) 726.
6, Before dilating upon the abovenoted contentions/reasons put forth on behalf of the parties, it would be relevant to refer to the objectionable headline of the Newspaper which contained the following leading.
"Report of theft case had been registered against Chief Justice, Balochistan High Court."
' As regards the substance of the news conveyed to the Head Office by Malik Monir Ahmad, Bureau Chief, was an information about details of a case pertaining to the Contempt of Court initiated by this Court against one Azam Jan Zarkoon and the news so despatched by Malik Monir Ahmad, as also observed by the Honourable Judge did not indicate his intention to scandalize the Judges of this Court.
' Following is the text of the unconditional apology tendered by Iftikhar Aadil, Editor-in-Chief, Daily Lashkar, Lahore:- {{URDU TEXT}} {{URDU TEXT}}
7. The contemner Irfanul Haq, Ex-Chief News Editor on 16-12-1995 tendered the unconditional apology in the following terms:- "It is respectfully submitted that the applicant admits and accepts the news item appeared in Daily 'Lashkar' Supplement, dated 28th November, 1997 and renders unconditional apology and I put myself entirely at the mercy of the Court."
' In reply to the charge-sheet and statement of allegations the contemner Irfanul Haq, on 23-12- 1997 with reference to his abovenoted unconditional apology again tendered the pardon in the same terms. It may be noted that, none of the contemners denied the charge, tendered unconditional apologies and offered explanations noted above.
8. It is an admitted feature of the case that the offending headline, published in the newspaper apparently meant and objected to scandalize the Honourable Chief Justice and the learned Judges and such a maligning, contemptuous and mala fide act; directly has the impact in shaking public confidence in Courts and tantamounts to affect adversely the Administration of Justice; while the serious allegations against the personal conduct of Judges also tend to prejudice the public confidence besides undermining the authority of Court. By imputing false criminal allegations against the Judges, as in the instant case, is a gross contempt and mischief which besides other repercussion; acts sharply on the minds of innocent readers and no impunity, exception or any explanation could be offered or to be sufficient to dislodge its' ordinary impression, adverse effects and the apparent intended and manifest impact on the minds of the people created by the offending headline of the newspaper; in addition to the disrepute, scandalizing Honourable Chief Justice and a serious blow on the esteemed and honoured Institution of Courts.
9. Adverting to the cited case-law by the learned counsel for the appellant, in same what identical matter, in the case of Habibul Wahhab Elkhari v. Khan Abdul Wali Khan and 4 others reported in PLD 1978 SC 85, the Honourable Supreme Court considering the sorrow expressed by the respondent during the proceedings of contempt of Court, it was observed by the Honourable Supreme Court:-- ""After considering the statement made before us by Mr. Abdul Wali Khan as to the circumstances in which he came to make the offending remarks, and the submissions made by the learned Attorney-General as well as the petitioners in both these cases, we are of the view that the dignity and the authority of the Court have been duly vindicated, and it is not necessary to proceed any further in this behalf. Mr. Abdul Wali Khan has unambiguously reiterated his respect and regard for the Supreme Court, and also the fact that he had no intention of maligning the Court or attributing motives to any of its Judges, and that he was sorry if any statements or remarks made by him had tended to give a contrary impression. He has also expressed his determination not to repeat such remarks in future."
' The Honourable Supreme Court dealing with the matter of "Direct Contempt of Court" having been established but in view of mitigating circumstances as per majority verdict, severe reprimand was ordered in the interest of justice, in the matter regarding contempt of Court proceedings against General (Retd.) Mirza Aslam Baig reported in PLD 1993 SC 310; the Honourable Chief Justice and Honourable Judge Mr. Justice Wali Muhammad Khan observed:-- "There are cases like the present one for example, a grand jury report filed in open Court if contemptuous, was treated as 'direct contempt' even if the grand jurer was absent from the Court when its contents became known. Similarly written statement amounting to contempt of Court if presented before the Court, it is anologous to contempt committed in the presence and face of the Court. Thus, in so far as the direct contempt is concerned there is not much difference between the words spoken or acts done in face of the Court or statement submitted to it in writing. Similarly there is no difference in a case where contempt is committed in the face of the Court or where it is scandalized by a published, printed or written material. In this connection making of an irrelevant or scandalous attack in a pleading filed in Court is a direct contempt which as already observed can be dealt with immediately brevimanu. So, was the case when the statement of the respondent, dated 12-2-1993 was presented and persistently pressed in the Court.
' 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.
' It is true that if we were to act on the precedent in this case of Mr, M. Anwar, a fresh severe reprimand at this concluding stage might have been necessary; but in our view once a reprimand having been administered by the other Bench, repeating it for the second time in the circumstances of the present case is not necessary."
' The Honourable Judge Mr. Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Mr. Justice Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry agreeing with the judgment in the abovenoted matter observed:-- "Por reasons to be recorded later, I have reached the conclusions that the charge of contempt of Court has been established against the respondent and accordingly, I convict him for committing contempt of this Court. However, on the question of sentence, I agree with the learned Attorney- General that there are mitigating circumstances in the case and keeping in view the same, I feel that a severe reprimand to respondent would serve the ends of justice in this case. It is ordered accordingly." ' and while writing the reasons for the abovenoted conclusion, the Honourable Mr. Justice Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, J. Held PLD 1994 SC 574:-- "Having found the respondent guilty of Contempt of this Court the next question for consideration in the case is the sentence to be awarded to the contemner. The learned Attorney-General very candidly and fairly stated before us that although respondent is guilty of Contempt of this Court on the basis of his admitted statement, but he is entitled to be dealt with leniently, in view of several mitigating circumstances in the case. The learned Attorney-General pointed out that the above statement was made by the respondent long after the decision of Haji Saifullah's case (supra) by this Court. The learned Attorney-General further poipted out that Mr. Wasim Sajjad, Chairman of the Senate, who voluntarily appeared with the permission of the Court, to record his statement in the case, and through whom respondent claimed to have sent the message to the Court, in his statement on oath before the Court, denied to have ever carried any message to this Court on behalf of respondent during the pendency of Haji Saifullah's case (supra). Mr. Wasim Sajjad also stated in his statement before the Court that during the discussion with the respondent when he visited G.H.Q., the latter had told him ' it does not matter to him what decision is given by the Supreme Court as that was in the prerogative of the Court'. According to learned Attorney-General, these circumstances show that the respondent had not tried to influence the judgment of this Court in Haji Saifullah's case (supra). The learned Attorney-General also invited our attention to the following passage in one of the two statements filed by respondent in the case on 1-3-1993:- ' that the regretful situation which arose after the event on 4-2-1993 and the consequent embarrassm ent caused to this Honourable Court, is most unfortunate and is deeply regretted. The respondent never intended to scandalize this Honourable Court or to cause it any embrassment.
The respondent firmly believes in the supremacy of law and that nobody is above law'.
' The learned Attorney-General on the basis of the above facts and circumstances argued that the respondent has not shown any contumacy in his actions and has rather expressed his remorse for the same. The learned Attorney-General, accordingly, referred to the case of Inayat Khan v. M.
Anwar (supra) and contended that in similar circumstances this Ccurt bad only reprimanded the contemner.
' Mr. Fakharuddin G. Ebrahim, the learned counsel for the respondent could not advance any argument to demonstrate that the above statement which the respondent admitted that he made to the Press at Lahore on 4th February, 1993, did not amount to Contempt of this Court.
' Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to agree with the contention of learned Attorney-General that in view of the mitigating circumstances in the case a severe reprimand to respondent will meet the ends of justice in this case. It is ordered accordingly."
' Dealing with the effect of unqualified apology the Honourable Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in the case of Sh. Zahoor Ahmad v. Sher Ali and others reported in 1977 PCr. LJ (Lah.) 852 held:-- "Every case proceeds on its owu facts and there are also authorities where the Courts have despite an unqualified apology proceeded to convict a contemner and visit him with substantial penalty.
Thus, in the case of Arif Nizami and Attorney-General v. Yousaf Ali Khan PLD 1971 SC 72, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court did not consider the unqualified apologies of the contemners even though tendered at the earliest opportunity as constituting sufficient amends and went on to impose penalties to them. These were no doubt cases which fell under that category of contempt which is known as 'scandalizing the Court', but we do not see why the same view cannot be taken on contempts of other types when these are of the grossest nature. It is to he observed that in contempt cases a Court is itself the causer as well as the Judge and in view of this inevitable position it is often inclined to take a very favourable view of the apology, but it does so only by way of grace and not, as already pointed out, on the basis of any imperative rule of law."
' The question of apology by the contemner has been examined by the Honourable Supreme Court in appeal case i,e, Muhammad Yunas v. The State reported in PLD 1976 SC 449 wherein it was observed and held:-- "The sentence of imprisonment passed against the appellant is the maximum permissible under the law, but it was passed because the learned Judge in Chambers was not satisfied about the genuineness of the apology submitted by the appellant. Now, apart from the fact that the learned Judge in Chambers was in a better position than we are to decide whether the apology submitted was genuine, I agree with the view that an apology submitted mechanically is not sufficient by itself to purge the contemner's contempt. A contemner cannot save himself from punishment by submitting an insincere apology. He must submit an unconditional apology and show by his conduct that he has repented of his behaviours. Additionally, the learned Single Judge has also taken into account the fact that interference with the Courts was increasing, and it cannot be said that this was a circumstance extraneous to the law of contempt.
' Mr. Buttar, however, stressed the fact that the appellant was genuinely repentant and that he had perhaps not been able to express himself clearly because he was not assisted by counsel. This aspect of the case requires examination, but the better course for the appellant would be to approach the learned Judge in Chambers again. In this view of the matter, as to the authorities cited by learned counsel, I would only observe that I would reaffirm the view taken in the majority judgment of this Court in Awal's case, and it was unfortunate that the attention of the learned Judge in Chambers was not drawn to this judgment. Therefore, on this ground also, the appellant should approach the High Court again.
' Mr. Buttar then pointed out that as a layman, the appellant was not in a position to give any assistance to the Court. That is correct. And the further submission was that the Court itself should have asked the appellant whether he wanted to engage a lawyer. Now whilst there cannot be any doubt about the Court's power to punish summarily for a contempt committed in the face of the Court, and the contempt in the instant case was of this obnoxious type, the contemners had submitted their apologies and the law of contempt is not as simple as it was a hundred years ago.
It also does not appear that the Court was assisted by the Attorney-General, therefore, I venture to think that it would have been better if the learned Judge in Chambers had given the appellant an opportunity of engaging counsel if he so wished. Such a procedure may not be required by law, but if it is followed it will help to ensure that the judgments of the High Court are not contrary to the law declared by this Court. Further what is far more important is that if such procedure is followed especially in those cases in which the Court has any intention of passing a sentence of imprisonment, justice will not only be done but will be seen to be done and, in my humble opinion, this will enhance and not diminish the dignity of the Courts which is the ultimate object of the law of contempt.
' The appellant should, therefore, approach the High Court again and if an application in this respect is filed it should be placed immediately before the learned Judge in Chambers as the appellant has already been in jail for three months. With these observations the appeal is dismissed."
' Similarly the purgation of contempt of Court in the light of apology tendered by the contemner was examined by the Honourable Lahore High Court in the case i,e, The State v. Shaukat Ali and 3 others reported in PLD 1976 Lah. 355 and it was held:-- "Sh. Shaukat Ali also gave an interview to a monthly journal 'Dhanak' which was published in its issue of August, 1975, wherein he made disparaging remarks against the Supreme Judicial Council of Pakistan. The Supreme Judicial Council issued notice of contempt to him in that connection. He was found guilty and was bound down for good behaviour for one year after he had tendered an unqualified apology. In 1971 while respondent No,1 was serving as a Judge of the High Court, he was charged for misconduct in the discharge of his duties, in re: The President v. Mr. Justice Shaukat Ali PLD 1971 SC 585. During the course of the scrutiny of his assets before the Supreme Judicial Council too he behaved similarly and committed its contempt and it was only when he was warned to stern action that better sense prevailed on him and on his apology the proceedings were dropped, and it was held that he had acted in a manner wholly unbecoming of a Judge. It is deplorable to find that respondent No,1 has developed a tendency or, shall we say, the habit to commit repeated contempts of the superior Courts in the Country and then after he is faced with the dire consequences to beg for apology and throw himself entirely at the mercy of the Court. In Sub- Judge, First Class, Hoshangabad v. Jawahar Lal Ramchand Parwar AIR 1940 Nag. 407 at pages 408, column 2 and 409, column 1, as it was held that:-- ' An apology is not a weapon of defence forged to purge the guilty of their offences. It is not an additional insult to be hurled at the heads of those who have been wronged. It is intended to be evidence of real contriteness, the manly consciousness of a wrong done, of an injury inflicted, and the earnest desire to make such reparation as lies in the wrong doer's power. Only then is it of any avail in a Court of justice. But before it can have that effect it would be tendered at the earliest possible stage, not the latest, and even if wisdom dawns only at the appellate stage, the apology should be tendered unreservedly and unconditionally before the arguments begin and before the person tendering the apology discovers that he has a weak cast and before the Judge (when that happens, as it did here) has indicated the trend of his mind. Unless that is done, not only is the tendered apology robbed of all grace but it ceases to be an apology; it ceases to be the full, frank, manly, confession of a wrong done which it is intended to be. It becomes instead the cringing of a coward shivering at the prospect of the stern hand of justice about to descend upon his head. It then deserves to be treated with the contempt with which cowards and bullets who do not hesitate to threaten others and to impugn their honesty and character without the slightest foundation and who cringe and wail when their own safety is at stake, are treated. However, I do not intend to make a point of this case because of the misconception which is prevalent in these parts about the meaning, nature and effect of an apology; nor of course am I intending to lay down any universal rule or to ignore the proviso to section 3, Contempt of Courts Act of 1926. I refer to the matter in these strong terms only in order that there should be no misconception about apologies in the future and about the practice in respect of the tendering of them, and in order that there should be no possible mistake about my meaning and attitude. Mere lip service to a formula without any contribution of heart will not do."
' The Honourable Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in the case of Rana Muhammad Akram Khan v. The State reported in 1993 PCr.LJ 2044 made the following observations about the contempt against the Judges of Superior Courts where an unqualified written apology though was tendered:-- "Disobedience of the order of this Court cannot wipe out with mere apology which is not a defence to the charge rather as observed by the learned Single Bench, it is only a mitigating circumstance.
The proposition that the moment apology is tendered by the contemner, the contempt, however, gross and unexcusable may be, automatically purged cannot be conceded to, rather the question whether the apology has the effect of purging or not is to be decided with reference to the facts and circumstances of each case. It is difficult to lay down a general proposition that the tendering of apology automatically purged contempt thereby giving licence to the people to defame Courts and Judges and then come with a beautifully worded apology. Therefore, an apology in a contempt case is not defence but a mitigating circumstance that too if it is tendered sincerely and unconditionally having the effect on the mind of the Court that it is unconditional and sincere and it can hardly be rejected. Unconditional written apology expressing profound and real regret is a gesture to appreciate but if the allegations are of extreme serious nature particularly in the cases where the allegations are against the Judges of the Supreme Courts, the contemner should be dealt with strictly and seriously with no leniency.
' The contempt proceedings are quasi criminal in nature, and therefore, benefit of every doubt should go to the accused. The jurisdiction of the superior Court to take action for contempt of their own authority is always jealously guarded but it is to be exercised sparingly. In case of a person apparently defying order of the Court but leaving room for doubt with regard to his intention and belief, possibly that he acted either mistakenly or on wrong notion and advice about his duty with regard to the compliance of the order of the Court, the benefit of doubt should ungrudgingly be given to him.
' The appellant before this Court has again tendered a sincere unqualified apology with undertaking to be careful in future with the submission that he proceeded in the matter without the intention to flout the order but for some misunderstanding and misguidance for which he is badly and seriously perturbed. He, while placing himself at the mercy of the Court submitted that he has always been highly respectful to this Court and never thought to degrade its dignity, honour and authority. We feel that the appellant for want of proper advice and due to misguidance, having soft corner for his subordinate proceeded in the matter without realising that it could call trouble for him, therefore, the possibility of his proceeding in the matter without the intention of disobeying the order of the Court or to lower it dignity cannot be ruled out and the benefit arising in the situation as to whether he acted deliberately or proceeded in the case with no bade intention is to be given to him. We are also of the view that while treating the unconditional apology tendered by the appellant as his admission to guilt, he should have been provided an opportunity to make his defence on the point that his act was not deliberate and intentional before convicting him. We, therefore, giving him the benefit of doubt arising in the circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that he has sufficiently been reprimanded and faced mental agony, as a matter of grace and gesture, accept the unconditional apology tendered by him before the learned Single Judge and also before us and while accepting his appeal, set aside his conviction and sentence and acquit him of the charge."
The rational of the abovequoted judgments in our humble opinion are that even in case of gross contempt, to which proposition we are confronted with; an earnest unconditional honest, sincere and penitent apology, per se would not be a ground for defence or to seek acquittal, however; if the conscience of the Court is satisfied that Such an unconditional apology tendered by the contemner qualifies the abovenoted conditions and keeping in view all the attending facts and circumstances of the case; the Court may pass appropriate orders as it may deem fit to vindicate the honour and dignity of the Court and its Judges in the ends of justice.
11. The learned Additional Advocate-General in support of his contentions placed reliance on the reported judgment i,e, NLR 1980 (Criminal) AJK 722 + 726 but the cited cases are distinguishable as the contemner during the proceedings did not express any remorse and contested the charge.
12. In the instant case, the appellant at his earnest tendered unqualified apology and placed himself at the mercy of the Court during the contempt proceedings, he explained that at the relevant time he was at Rawalpindi and no sooner he came to know about the offending headline published in Daily Lashkar, Lahore (Supplement); immediately on "Fax" removed the Chief News Editor of Daily Lashkar, Lahore from employment. The appellant did not contest the proceedings nor put any defence neither engaged any counsel to represent him and by tendering apology he admitted his guilt expressed in unequivocal terms, in our view his sincere, honest repentance and remorse, with categorical assurance to be extremely careful in future; to us such an unconditional apology furnishes mitigating circumstance against the gravity of the offence which though not a purgation of the gross contempt committed by the appellant, as has been rightly held by the Honourable Judge finding the appellant guilty for the charge.
13. In view of the abovenoted reasons we, are inclined to hold that the appellant has rightly been convicted by the Honourable Judge of this Court, however; in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the appellant's case coupled with his unqualified apology expressing serious and sincere remorse, we order for the reprieve of the remaining sentence of imprisonment of the appellant, as the period of imprisonment already undergone by him would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice, in vindicating the honour and dignity of the Court. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, subject to the sentence of fine in terms of the impugned judgment; and if not detained in connection with any other case; consequently, the appeal is disposed of in the above terms. We .