1. ' SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.---This appeal under Article 185(2)(c) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan read with section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 is directed against the judgment, dated 18th of July, 2000 whereby the learned Judges of the Lahore High Court held the appellant guilty of the contempt of Court and convicted and sentenced him till the rising of the Court and besides suspending his licence under section 54 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973 referred his case to the Punjab Bar Council to deal with it in terms of section 41 of the said Act.
2. ' The unhappy episode whereby a Reader of an I ' onourable Judge of the Lahore High Court was molested and physically assaulted took place on 21-4-2000 within the premises of the Lahore High Court. In the complaint authored by Mr. Ghulam Yasin Personal Assistant, it was precisely alleged that on the day of occurrence at about 8 a.m. The appellant enquired from him about the daily cause list. The former replied that it was displayed on the notice board outside the Court-room.
3. After a short while, the appellant again emerged in the Court-room and shouted aggressively as to where was the cause list, whereupon, the complainant asked the appellant to contact the Reader of the Court, and thus the appellant confronted the Reader who apprised him that the cause list was pasted on the notice board of Court-room No,8 being comparatively much more conspicuous place for the convenience of the Lawyers. It is alleged that on the spur of the moment the appellant lost his tamper, tore away the cause list and pounced upon the Reader and had a bite on his right hand. The appellant also gave successive kick blows on the private parts of the Reader with the result that he became unconscious and fell on the ground. Besides the PA the other officials of the Court concerned also witnessed the occurrence. The Reader was immediately taken to the High Court dispensary for medical treatment.
4. ' The Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court was apprised of the incident whereupon a Bench of three Honourable Judges of the Lahore High Court was constituted to proceed with the aforesaid complaint in accordance with law. On 22nd of April, 2000 a notice was issued to the appellant to show cause as to why proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act should not be initiated against him and notice was also issued to the Advocate-General, Punjab to render his assistance for the resolution of the controversy.
5. ' On 4-5-2000 an application was moved by the Punjab Bar Council for being impleaded as a party. A copy of representation duly signed by as many as 400 male lawyers as well as a number of lady lawyers against the character and conduct of the appellant was also brought on record.
6. The appellant filed his reply to the show-cause notice and took up the plea that the incident occurred outside the Court-room and the offence if at all committed fell within the mischief of Pakistan Penal Code. He admitted that an altercation did take place and the Reader of the Court caught hold of his necktie and thus a scuffle had ensued and he also annexed the copy of his complaint addressed to the Chief Justice wherein too he admitted to have bite the hand of the Reader to get himself released. In his supplementary reply, dated 13-7-2000 the appellant confessed his guilt and tendered an unqualified apology.
7. ' The learned Judges however declined to implead the Punjab Bar Council as a party to the proceedings and confined themselves as to whether contempt of Court had been committed particularly when an official of the Court was injured while performing his duties.The learned Judges exclusively dilated upon the conduct alone demonstrated by, the appellant and came to the conclusion that participation of the appellant in causing injuries to victim of attack stood, amply established through his own reply. Adverting to the contempt proceedings, the learned Judges were of the considered view, and rightly so, that affixation of the cause list outside the Court-room was a step towards the dispensation of justice and the act of the appellant in tearing the same into pieces before general public definitely obstructed not only the process of the Court but also course of justice and constituted its gross contempt with a deliberate attempt to undermine its dignity and authority.
8. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and with his assistance gone through the judgment impugned and do not feel persuaded to find out any illegality or infirmity with the same. Suffice it to add that the manner and mode in which the appellant assaulted and humiliated a functionary of the Court and showed his disrespectful attitude by tearing the cause list of the Court in view of the public within the Court premises was not only sensational but alarming as well, and therefore legitimately deserved to be tackled with iron hands as none can be allowed to make a mockery of the system of the administration of justice in such-like fashion. In this view of the matter, we are fully convinced and satisfied that the judgment impugned is absolutely in accord with the settled principles of the dispensation of safe administration of justice and is not at all open to any exception. In our view the appellant has already been dealt with leniently. Consequently, we have no other option but to dismiss this petition. Order accordingly.
9. Leave to appeal is refused.