Brief facts of this case are that Muhammad Afzal filed Criminals Miscellaneous No,2045/H of 1994, for the recovery of one Riasat Ali son of Nawab Khan from the custody of S.H.O., Police Station City, Sargodha. The petition came up for hearing before my learned brother Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J.
Who was pleased to depute a bailiff to recover the said Riasat Ali from the custody of respondent/S.H.O., Police Station City Sargodha and to produce the detenu Riasat on 28-12-1999.
On the said date, the bailiff submitted his report. According to report of the bailiff, the detenu was not found within the premises of the police station but the bedding of the said person was found in the police station and the other persons arrested/detained at the said police station had confirmed the fact that Riasat Ali detenu had in fact been detained at the said police station and was made to disappear therefrom only two (2) hours before the raid conducted by the bailiff. The report further showed that during the proceedings of the raid, Muhammad Aslam, Inspector, S.H.O.
(respondent No,1 herein) had depicted extreme highhandedness towards the bailiff of this Court and had resorted to threats as well as intimidating behaviour towards the bailiff. It was further submitted in the report that respondent No,1 had practically and physically detained the bailiff of this Court in the Reporting Room of the said police station and that certain derogatory remarks towards this Court were also passed by respondent/S.H.O. During the raid conducted by the bailiff.
2. Respondent/S.H.O. Also appeared before the Court on 28-12-1999 and categorically denied that Riasat Ali detenu was ever arrested by him and that the allegations levelled by the bailiff in his report were factually unfounded.
3. The habeas petition was accordingly disposed of with the observation that the petitioner may approach this Court again with a fresh application, if and when he comes to know of the present place of custody of the detenu. However, in view of the seriousness of the allegations levelled by the bailiff against respondent/S.H.O. The S.S.P., Sargodha was directed to hold inquiry into the allegations and to submit the report within next two weeks. The matter was ordered to be relisted on 17-1-2000 to see the result of inquiry conducted by the S.S.P., Sargodha. On the said date, that is, 17-1-2000, neither any report was submitted nor anyone appeared on behalf of the S.S.P. And the learned A.A.-G. Undertook to inform the S.S.P. About the passing of the order, dated 28-12-1999. It was also observed in the order, dated 17-1-2000 that as pointed out by the learned A.A.-G. The facts of this case had a direct nexus with the case titled Yara v. S.H.O. Criminal Miscellaneous No,1749/H of 1999 which was decided by me on 27-10-1999, office was directed to obtain the necessary orders from the Honourable Chief Justice for hearing of this matter by me. The matter was then fixed before me by order of the Honourable Chief Justice on 27-1-2000 when only Mr. Muhammad Hand Khatana, Additional Advocate-General appeared who was directed to make a telephonic call to S.S.P., Sargodha to appear in this Court alongwith report on 28-1-2000 with further direction to issue notice to Muhammad Aslam, Inspector, respondent No,1 to also appear. On 28-1-2000 S.S.P., Sargodha appeared in the Court and explained that earlier he could not record statement of the bailiff and be given time to do the needful. Statement of the bailiff was recorded in which he reiterated his earlier report, dated 28-12-1999, and then the case was taken up in the later part of the day on the same day. A show-cause notice for contempt of Court was issued to Muhammad Aslam, Inspector, respondent No,1 with direction to the S.S.P., Sargodha to ask his subordinate A.S.P.
To submit his inquiry report. Muhammad Aslam, Inspector, respondent/S.H.O. Was also asked to arrange for his representation. Reply to the show-cause notice was filed by Muhammad Aslam, Inspector on 15-2-2000. Inquiry report was also filed by A.S.P. Mr. Azhar Sheikh, Advocate filed his power of attorney on behalf of Muhammad Aslam, Inspector, contemner and requested for time on the ground of being engaged on the last night. Today, Mian Muhammad Sikandar Hayat, Advocate has also filed his power of attorney and requested for adjournment which was granted till 10 a.m.
Today as the matter was hanging for the last two months.
4. At the very outset, learned counsel for respondent No,1 Muhammad Aslam, Inspector submits that he does not want to contest the notice on merits but asks for apology. Muhammad Aslam, Inspector, respondent No,1 who is present in person also tenders unconditional apology and puts himself at the mercy of the Court, with the explanation that he has 39 years police service to his credit.
5. I have gone through the report submitted by A.S.P., Sargodha, report of the bailiff and the reply to the show-cause notice submitted by respondent No,l. Although Muhammad Aslam, Inspector, respondent S.H.O. Has tendered unconditional apology yet the fact remains that he acted in a manner which amounts to bringing the authority of the Court into disrespect and disrepute and obstructing process of the Court. A bailiff when deputed to recover a detenu while exercising powers under section 491, Cr.P.C. Or under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan acts as a representative of the High Court. The report submitted by the bailiff in this case cannot be disbelieved. Respondent has 39 years of service to his credit but the mere fact of long service, in the nature of contempt he has committed, cannot be treated lightly and rather after such a long service, respondent should have been more careful instead what he has done in the instant case. It may be observed that unconditional apology is not a defence to the charge of contempt of Court and when ever indulgence is shown that is by way of grace and concession. The contemner cannot claim acquittal or discharge of notice as a matter of right on the strength of unqualified apology and such an apology does not ipso facto purge the offence. The accused by detaining the bailiff for four (4) hours in the Reporting Room of the police station has committed naked and unprecedented contempt of Court. The purpose of contempt proceedings is not to wreck vengeance but to vindicate the honour of this Court so as to keep public confidence on superior Courts undiminished and to keep the fountain of justice free from pollution and obstruction. Keeping in view the facts as mentioned above, I still take a lenient view of the matter by invoking the powers under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 read with Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan sentence Muhammad Aslam, Inspector, contemner to C one (1) month's S.I. And a fine of Rs,5,000 or in default thereof further S.I. For one (1) month. He is present in Court. He shall be taken into custody to undergo the term of sentence.