' The accused-contemner is under notice for contempt of this Court. This case arises out of Cr. M.
366/H-71 and Cr. M. 696/M-71. On the application of one Nawaz against the accused-contemner a bailiff was deputed for the recovery and production in this Court of certain detenus named in the first mentioned petition. Some of the detenus were produced by the bailiff and the others were not found with the respondent. It is not necessary to deal with the other details. However, one Qasim, who was one of the detenus, was not available anywhere for some days. The accused-contemner had, after appearance in this Court, promised to make attempts to find Qasim's whereabouts. On his asking adjournment was allowed. On the adjourned date it was complained that Nawaz, the petitioner in the original petition, had also been detained by the accused-contemner and further that Qasim had been given merciless beating. When questioned the accused-contemner had again denied any knowledge about Qasim detenu. This happened on 17-6-1971. There was no alternative then but to direct the D. S. P. Concerned to arrange immediate raid on the Police Station, Depalpur, where the accused contemner was serving as S. H. O., and thereafter to recover and produce the two detenus, namely, Nawaz and Qasim before this Court. The D. S. P. Was also directed to submit a report in this behalf to this Court. The Assistant Commissioner, Depalpur was not directed to be apprised of the aforementioned order and he was told to remain in touch with the D. S. P. And submit a separate report to this Court. On the next date of hearing Le.
21.6-1971, the then two detenus, namely, Qasim and Nawaz appeared in this Court. They complained that they had been detained by the accusedcontemner and his subordinates and that they had also been beaten by them. Qasim complained that his left fore-arm remained swollen due to beating and that the police had afforded him treatment with some medicine.
Nawaz detenu stated that he had marks of injuries on his body. They explained that they had been taken by the police, including the S. H.
0. (accused-contemner) from place to place in blind folded condition and that ultimately they were left in Depalpur, a day earlier i,e, 20-6-1971. Thereafter the S. H.
0. Had paid them some money and told them that they should run away and that they should never disclose that they had been detained by him, and further that they should inform the High Court, if they ever appear before it, that they had no their own run away due to fear of the police.
2. The complaints were serious. There were visible marks of injuries. 1, therefore, then directed that both the detenus he medically examined at State expenses by a Police Surgeon. The case had earlier been fixed for 25-6-1971 for the appearance of the S. H.
0. i,e, the accused-contemner. The detenus were also directed to appear on that date i,e, 25.6- 971.
On the said date i,e,, 25-6-1971 I recorded an order that "in view of the allegations made against Qazi Muhammad Tufail, S. H.
0., by the detenus in this Court on 21st June 1971, prima facie it appears that the S. I. Has committed the contempt of this Court and has also committed certain offences in relation to the proceedings pending in this Court. Let him be examined". The examination of the accused-contemner was conducted on the same date which is reproduced below "Statement of Qazi Muhammad Tufail, S. H.
0., Police Station Depalpur.
Q. It appears from the proceedings on this petition that you made false statements in this Court in respect of the alleged detention of Qasim detenu. It also appears from the record that in order to frustrate the proceedings initiated under section 491, Cr. P. C. At the instance of Muhammad Nawaz petitioner, you illegally detained Muhammad Nawaz petitioner, and thus committed the contempt of this Court ?
A. The allegation is false. Q. Did you keep Muhammad Nawaz and Qasim detenus in illegal confinement and gave them beating ? Show cause why you should not be prosecuted for the offences thus committed ?
A. This is also incorrect. Q. Do you want to say anything else ?
A. Qasim detenu is a history sheeter. He has been challaned in so many cases. I arrested his sister.
Q. Do you want to produce evidence in support of your plea ? A. Yes.
3. As, apart from the contempt of this Court, it appeared from the proceedings conducted by this Court that the police officials, including the accused-contemner, might have committed other offences qua the person and property of the detenus (a complaint was made that the police had also forcibly taken away belongings of the detenus), therefore, I deemed it fit in the interest of justice to direct the Assistant Commissioner, Depalpur for holding an enquiry and submit report to this Court.
4. The progress of the enquiry by the Assistant Commissioner remained slow for a considerable time. No action was taken by him. On the submission of a report by the Assistant Commissioner, showing lack of interest, I made the following observation on 16-1-1976: "A suspicion arises that the Police Officer concerned is being shown favour or at least leniency.
Coercive measures under the law could have been taken long ago. Otherwise, this case might be classic example of lethorgy or inefficiency. In either case this by itself might amoant to disrespect being shown to this Court. A. C. Be apprised of this comment."
' Thereafter the Assistant Commissioner within a span of about three months rushed through the enquiry, did not observe even the basic requirements for collecting material and reaching conclusions, and submitted his negative report dated 27-4-1976. On submission of this report before me by the office of the High Court I, not having been satisfied with the same, directed vide order dated l6-5-1976, that the case be put "in Court with notice for 2-6-1976 to Muhammad Nawaz and Qasim through District Magistrate, Sabiwal".
5. The above direction was made in view of so-called conclusion of the Assistant Commissioner that the detenus were not available for appearance before him. The observations in this behalf prima fade were found incorrect. The D. M. Was able to serve the detenus within no time. However, their appearance in this Court was again through the custody of the police, which matter is at present being dealt with separately. No further comment is necessary on this part of the case because that might prejudice the case of someone who is not present in this Court in those proceedings.
6. The case has taken a strange but healthy turn in this Court this time. The accused-contemner on the very first day of appearance in Court showed his willingness not to contest the case and tendered unqualified apology. His learned counsel was asked to direct his client to submit his apology in writing. On 22-6-1976, the very next date fixed for this purpose, the accused-contemner produced the following apology in writing: "(1) That the respondent was Station House Officer, Police Station Depalpur in the year 19/1.
(2) That he respondent was transferred from that station in the end of the year 1971, and was transferred out of the District in the year, 1973.
(3) That now, the respondent is posted for the last 1 year in District Cembellpur and is serving as Inspector, Pindi-Gheb.
(4) That the respondent has received the notice for action under the Contempt of Courts Act.
(5) That the respondent tenders unqualified apology and throws himself at the mercy of the Court.
The respondent has put in service of about 28 years and during this long period of service, the respondent showed greatest respect and regard for the judicial proceedings and Courts of law.
The respondent has the highest regard and respect for this honble Court. The respondent does not contest the case, the respondent pleads guilty and places himself in the merciful hands of this hon'ble Court and promises never to repeat the offence and to be careful in future ; the petitioner sincerely apologizes and begs for mercy."
' On the explanation from the side of the accused-contemner it was noted that the apology was in connection with the earlier proceedings in this Court. The accused-contemner also verbally explained that he did not want to contest the case and he pleaded guilty. He also promised never to repeat the offence and to be careful in future. While doing so he also uttered the word "URDU TEXT". He explained in this connection that "he understands that despite the apology he can be sentenced to imprisonment. Therefore, according to him, the apology is sincere and that it is not to save himself from punishment but is to show respect to this Court and uphold its honour and dignity".
7. Both Nawaz and Qasim who were detenus in the original proceedings, were also present. They stated that they were no more interested in prosecuting the accused-contemner. They had also been promised (rather, according to them, a firm commitment had been made to them) that their belongings would be returned to them. A surety had been furnished to them in this behalf by the accused-contemner. The said surety, namely, All Akbar was present. He affirmed what had been stated by them. It appeared that with regard to the belongings they felt fully satisfied. With regard to the injuries and humiliation suffered by them, learned counsel for the accused-contemner then stated that his client had already voluntarily told him (the learned, counsel) that he would on his own compensate the said detenus in so far their injuries are concerned. After recording all this, it was noted that no time was left and the case was adjourned for arguments today.
8. Learned counsel for the accused-contemner has produced for my examination a writing which purports to be a receipt executed from the side of the detenus, showing receipt of Rs, 1,500 from the accused-contemner. He has now placed it on the record. It appears to be attested by Ali Akbar, (who according to the accused-contemner is the same person who stood in surety respect of the return of belongings) and another person, namely, Muhammad Abbas.
9. From the demeanour of the two detenus, it appears that they have been fully compensated.
They have also pardoned the accused-contemner and they are no more interested in prosecuting him on any side either in the ordinary Courts for any general offence or in this Court for contempt.
10. In view of what has been stated above, learned Assistant Advocate General has taken the position that on the principles laid down in the cases of A. K. M. A. Awal v. The State (1) The State v.
Muhammad Ashraf Zahid (2) and Habibul Wahhab Elkheiri, Advocate v. Sh. Shaukat Advocate (3), the accused-contemner having unconditionally thrown himself at the mercy of this Court with an unqualified apology undertaking not to repeat the offence again and with plea of guilty, should be discharged. No doubt the pleas of guilty and apology are belated but the circumstances of this case are not different from those in the case of Sh. Shaukat Ali. The observations made therein (para. 12, page 388 of the report apply to this case
(1) PLD 1964 SC 56 (2) PLD 1975 Lab. 635
(3) PLD 1976 Lab. 373 also. There is an additional circumstance which goes in favour of the accused-contemner. If he had no intention of never to repeat the offence of contempt, he would not have used the word "pleads guilty" in his written apology. This indeed is a courageous act on his part which cannot but uphold the dignity of this Court. I am satisfied that be has no intention of repeating the offence.
During the course of arguments his learned counsel stated at the bar that his client is a completely changed/reformed man ; and has explained that the draft of apology remained with the accused- contemner for about 24 hours and thereafter before its submission in the Court the accused- contemner had explained to him that he from depth of his heart wanted to purge himself of the contempt that is why he had kept the draft intact as it was originally charged including the plea of guilty. It is, of course, assumed if the accused-contemne wanted to omit the words relating plea of guilty before its submission before the Court, there was nothing to prevent him. The apology could also be tendered without the use of these words but in that case probably it could not have created the effect which, as appears from the aforesaid going discussion, it has infact created. I am fully satisfied that it is on account of the contriteness that the accused contemner pleaded guilty, tendered the unqualified apology and also gave genuine undertaking never to repeat the offence.
11. Keeping all the circumstances in view, particularly the aforesaid facts I accept the apology and direct that the accused shall be and is hereby discharged.
12. A question might arise as to what is the affect of unconditional discharge. While dealing with a similar question in the case of Muhammad Ashrof Zahid, who was conditionally discharged on execution of a bond, I had then directed and clarified that he would "not suffer any departmental disqualification or disability during the period of the continuance of aforementioned bond of conditional discharge in respect of his service in any manner whatsoever". This case is amply fit for such a direction. The accused-contemner is an Inspector of Police and has 28 years of service. He has taken a bold but reasonable stand to uphold the rule of L aw even at the risk of serious consequences to himself. I, therefore, pass the same order in this case, namely, that he shall not suffer any departmental disqualification or disability in respect of his service, in any manner whatsoever, in so far this case is concerned. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.