1. TANVIR AHMAD KHAN, J.--A complaint was made by Mr. Ghulam Yasin, Personal Assistant to Mr. Justice Ch. Ijaz Ahmad on 21-4-2000 that Afaq Ahmad, Advocate respondent has physically maltreated the Reader of the Court Mr. Shahid Qamar causing him injuries and torn cause list of the Court affixed outside on the notice board of adjacent Court-room. The complaint was in the following terms:-- "Today on -21-4-2000, I was in my official capacity in the Courtroom at 8-00 a.m. When all of a sudden an Advocate whose name I came to know later on Mr. Afaq Ahmad-I came in the Court- room and asked me 'where was the cause list'. I told him that it has been displayed at the notice board outside the Court-room. On this he left the Court-room and after few minutes he came back in the Courtroom and shouted with a voice, that where was the cause list. Let him know at once. I requested him that it was the duty of the Reader to tell you about the cause list. He uttered harsh words and left the Court-room. Then met the Reader (Mr. Shahid Qamar) who was standing outside the Court-room. He asked him where was the cause list. The Reader told him that the cause list was annexed on the notice board of adjacent Court-room i,e, Court-room No,8 because there is no sufficient illumination over the notice board of our Court-room and the Advocates feel inconvenience to see the contents of cause list. After hearing these words he lost temper, tore the cause list and grappled with the Reader and caused grievous hurt on his right hand with the help of teeth. He also hit the Reader with his leg on his testicles. On receiving this blow, the Reader of this Court Mr. Shahid Qamar became unconscious and fell down on the ground.
2. Besides me this incident has been witnessed by M/s. Muhammad, Naib Qasid, Muhammad Azeem, Naib Qasid and Maqsood Ahmad, Naib Court of this Court. After the incident the Reader was taken to the Dispensary of this Court for treatment. He is still under the treatment of Doctor." This complaint was processed by the Registrar who referred it to the Hon'ble Chief Justice for information and appropriate order who on the same day constituted this Bench to deal with the complaint in accordance with law. The Bench assembled on 22-4-2000 and after perusal of the entire record a notice was issued to Afaq Ahmad, Advocate to show cause why the proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act shall not be initiated against him. A notice was also issued to learned Advocate-General, Punjab to assist the Bench in the resolution of the matter. The case was taken up on 4-5-2000 on which date an application was moved by the Punjab Bar Council for its impleadment. This application was filed. By Mr. Muhammad Aslam Khan Buttar a Member, Punjab Bar Council who was duly authorised by the Vice-Chairman, Punjab Bar Council Mr. Muhammad Ramzan Khalid Joyya, who was also present in the Court on the said date. A copy of the representation addressed to the Punjab Bar Council duly signed by more than 400 male lawyers as well as number of lady lawyers making grievance against the conduct demonstrated earlier by Afaq Ahmad Contemner along with the application. On that very date Afaq Ahmad also filed reply to show cause notice wherein he tried to justify his conduct. He took up the plea that the incident had taken place outside the Court-room and at the most it might be the case tribal under the provision of Pakistan Penal Code. He admitted the altercation and stated that it was the Court Reader who caught hold of his neck tie. He also appended along with the reply, a copy of his complaint addressed to the Hon'ble Chief Justice on the day of incident wherein he had admitted that in order to get himself released from the Reader, he cut his hands with his teeth. Again the case came up for hearing on 11-5-2000, on which date the respondent contemner sought permission to submit a further reply which he did on 13-7-2000. In the supplementary reply he has confessed his guilt and tendered an unqualified apology. We have given our anxious consideration to the entire facts of this case in the light of the belated unqualified apology tendered by Afaq Ahmad at this stage. We have also decided not to touch plea of impleadment of Punjab Bar Council keeping in view the nature of the order which we are going to pass.
3. The conduct of the respondent Afaq Ahmad in tearing the cause list sing injuries to the Reader stands established from his reply as well as other documents. In the unqualified apology he has also admitted his guilt. Even in his earlier reply, he admitted causing of injuries to the Reader but maintained that the same were caused to get himself free as the said Reader caught hold of his neck tie. In para 7 of his first reply submitted on 4-5-2000, he stated as under:-- "However, if any physical injury is caused to the said Reader as a result of altercation outside the Court-room, when the Court was not in session, the same can be (at the most) the subject-matter of a trial under P.P.C. Before the appropriate forum and no action is sustainable under the law for Contempt of Court." In contempt proceedings every form of interference/obstruction in the dispensation of justice amounts to contempt. Affixation of cause list outside the Court-room is a step towards the dispensation of justice. The act of the respondent in tearing the same into pieces in the manner stated above, before the public certainly amounts to interference with the process of the Court and tends to lower the dignity of the Court itself. In a Full Bench case reported in Dr. Aijaz Hassan Qureshi v. A Judge of the High Court, Lahore PLD 1973 Lah. 778, the learned Bench has reproduced the different facets of contempt from Macmillar, on Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, Volume in the following words:-- "Contempt of Court in Anglo-American Law is generally such conduct as impedes the proper administration of justice or tends to bring it into contempt. Acts of contempt may be roughly classified as to their range as follows: contempt's in facie curiae, or 'in the immediate view and; presence, as they are called in the books, which consist of such misbehaviour in the presence of a Court as interferes with its proceedings; contempt's not in the immediate presence of a Court but which are nevertheless explicit interference with judicial authority, such as assaults upon witnesses of tampering with persons or property under the jurisdiction of a Court contempt's of process or orders in the course of an action or proceedings; contempt's by publication, consisting of objectionable extra-forensic criticism of the conduct of a Court with reference to pending Causes."
4. (Underlining is mine).
5. The tearing up of the cause list is a disrespectful attitude of the respondent towards the Court of law as he has damaged its property which if allowed to continue would certainly hamper the due course of justice. As already stated the moment this sort of conduct is demonstrated, the authority of the Court is lowered in the eye of the public. We are sorry to hold that this sort of conduct is not .Expected of an Advocate of this Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported in Ashfaque Ahmad Sheikh v State PLD 1972 SC 39 upheld the conviction of an Advocate who " in the due course of justice by his act and conduct in the open Court and outside the Court-room which resulted in undermining the dignity and authority of the Court in public.
6. The aforesaid resume brings us to an irresistible conclusion that Afaq Ahmad, Advocate has committed contempt of this Court by interfering in the due course of justice/dispensation of justice by not only causing injuries to the Reader of the Court in the performance of his duties but has also torn into pieces the cause list affixed outside the Court-room.
7. Since the contemner after admitting his guilt has tendered his unqualified apology as such in the circumstances we are taking a lenient view and in exercise of our power under Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan read with Contempt of Court Act, convict him for contempt and sentence him till the rising of the Court. We also in exercise of our power under section 54 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, suspend his licence from practice and refer his case to the Punjab Bar Council to be dealt with under section 41 of the aforesaid Act.
8. No order as to costs in the circumstances.