1. ' This petition under sections 3/4 of the Contempt of Court Act read with Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by Zahid Rasool and 6 others arising from the order dated 27-10-2000 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No,21045 of 2000 titled Ijaz Ahmad and others v. The State.
2. The writ petition was filed for a direction to the respondents to the writ petition, out of whom respondents Nos.1 to 5 were Police Officers while respondent No,6 was a Lt.-Col. Of Pakistan Army, not to harass the writ petitioners. In view of seriousness of the allegation levelled by the writ petitioners which were controverted by the learned Additional Advocate-General, this Court in order to find out the truth appointed Mian Jamil Akhtar, Advocate as a local commission to visit the spot and submit his report as to factual position prevailing at the spot.
2. ' Before proceeding any further, brief facts of the case out of which these proceedings arise may be stated here. The petitioners were doing the business of scrap having godowns on terms of tenancy from constructed upon property bearing Khasra Nos.4358, 4366 and 4367 Misri Shah, Lahore. The property is owned by Mst. Imtiaz Miraj (widow) Aurangzeb Iftikhar and Faisal Iftikhar sons of Malik Iftikhar Ahmad. The petitioners were paying rent to the owners to the property. On 15-9-2000 some Police officials visited the godowns under the tenancy of the petitioners and wanted the petitioners and other inhabitants of the locality to get some statements recorded to Which the petitioners refused and then on 29-9-2000 at about 5-00 p.m. D.S.P. Of the Circle, S.H.O. Police Station Misri Shah, alongwith a large number of Police force and also respondent No,2 alongwith two persons in Army uniform came to the godowns under the tenancy of the petitioners and asked them to vacate the same and hand over the vacant possession to respondent No,7. Respondent No,7 also told the petitioners that the action of forcible dispossession was being taken under the command of the Corps Commander, Lahore. On refusal of the petitioners to vacate the rented premises, they were asked by the respondents to execute tenancy agreements in favour of respondent No,7 and to depose that Aurangzeb Iftikhar and others forcibly entered into possession of the property. After having failed to dispossess the petitioners from the rented property, the godowns were locked by the Police restraining the petitioners from entering into the same. The prayer made in the writ petition was that the respondents may be prohibited from interfering into business of the petitioners and to dispossess them illegally.
3. ' Mian Jamil Akhtar, Advocate submitted his report. He carried out the inspection in the presence of both the parties. He also recorded the statement of Mian Najeeb, respondent No,7. The learned Local Commissioner submitted that the possession was taken by the respondents through force_ but admitted that according to his inquiry which he made from the inhabitants of the locality, no person from Pakistan Army came at the spot or took part in the whole affair but their names were only used by the other respondents to take over the possession. The Local Commissioner annexed with his report, electricity bills, telephone bills, a certified copy of the plaint filed by Javed Babar through Najeeb and the order dated 3-10-2000 passed by a learned Civil Judge in the aforesaid suit. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in the writ petition was that since possession was taken forcibly and illegally, the same may be restored. The claim of the respondents to the writ petition that the property was actually owned by Javed Babar and Najeeb was his attorney. However, learned counsel for Najeeb conceded that he had no objection to the report submitted by the local commission rather accepted its correctness as to factual position obtaining at the spot was concerned. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the following order was passed on 27-10-2000:- "For what has been stated above, I am of the considered view that respondent No,7 with the help of statutory functionaries forcibly took over the possession of the property in question under the tenament of the petitioners without any legal order from any Court but through show of force which act of the respondents cannot be countenanced. The whole action of the respondents is illegal having got no sanction in law, so by accepting the writ petition, I direct respondent No,7 to put back the petitioners in possession within 24 hours. The writ petitioners are not a party to the civil suit. They if so advised may move a proper application in that regard. As to forcible dispossession of the petitioners from the property in question is concerned, they will approach the concerned S.H.O. Who would register a criminal case under the relevant provisions of law and proceed in the matter further."
4. ' This order was assailed by Muhammad Najeeb before a D.B. In Intra Court Appeal but the same was dismissed vide order dated 13-2-2001 for non prosecution. The application for restoration of the I.C.A. Too was dismissed on 14-2-2001.
5. ' Since the learned D.B. Did not interfere with the order passed in W.P. No,21045 of 2000, the petitioners approached the S.H.O. Concerned to register a case but he did not take any action.
6. Pursuant to the order passed in the said writ petition, Muhammad Najeeb, respondent No,1 also did not put back the petitioners into possession over the godowns under their tenancy. The acts and deeds of respondents by way of continuous disobedience of dictates of the Court was alleged to be a nasty effort to lower the authority and hamper the administration of law and justice. In these circumstances, the petitioners filed Cr. Org. No,212/W of 2001 upon which notice was issued to the respondents and the case was ordered to come up on 13-3-2001. Muhammad Najeeb respondent No,1 could not be served as such the S.H.O. Garden Town was directed to effect service upon Najeeb and to appear in this Court alongwith report on 22-3-2001. On this date too respondent No,1 Najeeb could not be served. On the adjourned date, that is 29-3-2001 Nazir Ahmad S.I. Submitted that Muhammad Najeeb was served. On that date also Mr. Muhammad Azam, Advocate appeared on behalf of Muhammad Najeeb but without any power of attorney. Then on 3-4-2001 Mr. C.R.
7. Aslam, a senior Advocate moved an application in Court (without number) stating that Zahid Rasool did not want to press the contempt proceedings. Zahid Rasool was not present on the said date but the statement of his father Ghulam Rasool was recorded on oath on the said date. After recording statement of father of Zahid Rasool, Mr. C.R. Aslam, Advocate sought adjournment to produce Zahid Rasool. The case was adjourned to 6-4-2001. On this date, the petitioners of the contempt petition appeared before the Court and submitted that a compromise has been entered into in between them and Muhammad Najeeb. They also submitted that they were not making the statements under any coercion. Muhammad Najeeb was directed to file reply and the matter was postponed to 12-4-2001. Thereafter, on 20-4-2001 C.M. No,391 of 2001 was filed Mst. Imtiaz Miraj (widow), Faisal Iftikhar and Aurangzeb Iftikhar seeking permission to be allowed to join the contempt proceedings. On this application, notice was issued to the respondents with direction to learned counsel for respondents to file reply without fail before the next date of hearing. On 27-4- 2001, Mr. C.R. Aslam, Advocate appearing for Zahid Rasool opposed the application filed by Mst.
8. Imtiaz Miraj and others. The application for joining Mst. Imtiaz Miraj and others. Was allowed and two day's time was given to Muhammad Najeeb to file the reply as his mother was allegedly operated upon.
9. ' This order was challenged by Muhammad Najeeb before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan through Cr.P.S.L.A. No,269/L of 2001, which was dismissed as having been withdrawn on 22-5-2001.
10. ' Again on 18-5-2001, C.M. No,499 of 2001 was filed by Zahid Rasool seeking permission to withdraw the contempt petition. The application seeking permission for withdrawal of the contempt proceedings was dismissed. Since even on that date, Muhammad Najeeb, respondent did not submit the reply and took the stand that he could not do the needful as his mother had died. His deliberate disobedience to file the reply was visited with the penalty of finding him to the tune of Rs,5,000. This order of. 18-5-2001 was also challenged by Muhammad Najeeb before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan through Cr. P. S. L. A. No,314 of 2001 but the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 31-5-2001.
11. ' Finally, reply was filed by Muhammad Najeeb but on 25-5-2001 his learned counsel wants some time to amend his reply submitted in response of the contempt petition. The proceedings were adjourned to 1st June, 2001 on which date the order was reserved.
12. ' The order passed in Writ Petition No,21045 of 2000 on 27-10-2000 was very clear. There was no ambiguity at all. Muhammad Najeeb respondent was directed to put back the petitioners to the writ petition in possession within 24 hours. This order was challenged by Najeeb through I.C.A.
13. No,748 of 2000 which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 13-2-2001. On 14-2-2001 an application for restoration of the I.C.A. Was filed which too was dismissed, This order dated 14-2-2001 was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of C.P.S.L.A. No,538 of 2001 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 2-3-2001. It is thus clear that the order dated 27-10-2000 passed in W.P. No,21045 of 2000 still holds in the field.
14. ' The conduct of Muhammad Najeeb respondent is crucial question in these proceedings. First of all, notice was issued to him on 23-2-2001 but he intentionally avoided service and it was only on 29-3-2001 that Mr. Muhammad Azam, Advocate appeared on his behalf but without a power of attorney. This service was procured through the Police. He did not care about the orders passed by this Court to file reply to the contempt petition and the petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Filed by Mst. Imtiaz Miraj and others to become a party to the contempt proceedings and it was only on 25- 5-2001 that reply was filed only to the application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Controverting the submissions made by Mst. Imtiaz Miraj and others and prayed that the application before devoid of merit may be dismissed. As regards contempt petition, it was submitted that the same has been rendered infructuous after the statement made by the writ petitioners showing their desire not to get the possession of the property.
15. ' The law on the scope of contempt has been set at rest by the Hon`ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Shahid Orakzai v. Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz Group) (2000 SCM R 1969) I cannot add or subtract anything therefrom.
16. ' There is no denying the fact that Zahid Rasool filed an application firstly on 3-4-2001 seeking permission to withdraw the contempt petition, but the statement of his father Ghulam Rasool negates the stand taken by Mr. C.R. Aslam, Advocate posing himself to have been engaged by Zahid Rasool. Be that as it may, the contempt matter is between the Court and the contemner alone and a stranger has nothing to do with such proceedings as the role of an informer ends once the Court takes cognizance of the matter at his instance.
17. ' It may be noted here that had there been a compromise between Muhammad Najeeb and Zahid Rasool after passing of the order in writ petition, Muhammad Najeeb could not have filed the I.C.A.
18. And then went before the Hon'ble Supreme Court but met with no success. The filing of the instant contempt petition on 18-2-2001 also suggests that Muhammad Najeeb did not comply with the order of this Court and there was no compromise between him and Zahid Rasool. These circumstances suggest that there were some other circumstances which pursuaded Zahid Rasool to withdraw the contempt petition. The compromise, if any, was reached between Najeeb and Zahid Rasool on 3-4-2001 when admittedly prior to that there was no stay order in the filed against the order dated 27-10-2000 passed in Writ Petition No,21045 of 2000 directing Najeeb to put back the writ petitioners to possession within 24 hours. It is, therefore, proved on record that Muhammad Najeeb did not comply with the order dated 27-10-2000. It may be observed that a writ is a command from a superior Court to inferior tribunals or the authorities which requires instant compliance. Muhammad Najeeb, respondent took the order of this Court so lightly that he was directed to file reply to the contempt petition on 6-4-2001. Thereafter, the case came up for hearing on 5 dates, but he did not submit his reply. Over and above all, in the first reply, he did not ask for apology and it was only in the amended reply that he tendered his unconditional apology.
19. The prayer part of the second reply reads as under:-- "In view of the above submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that the contempt application though devoid of any merit may kindly be dismissed. Notwithstanding this the respondent No,1 very humbly throws himself on the mercy of this Hon'ble Court and tenders his unqualified and unconditional apology."
20. ' It is settled law that tendering of unqualified apology amounts to admission of the charge. I find that Muhammad Najeeb respondent was not sincere in tendering the apology because in the reply there was nothing like this and it was only in the amended reply that this fact was mentioned. I am afraid such an apology do not qualify for acceptances in the light of settled principles laid down by the superior Courts in this behalf and, that is, the apology must be offered at the earliest stage of the contempt proceedings and may not be postponed till fag-end of the proceedings, (ii) the apology must be unconditional, unreserved and unqualified and (iii) the apology should not only appear but must also satisfactorily represent sincere and genuine remorse and should not be half- hearted or mere formality and lastly the contemner should not endeavour to justify his conduct.
21. 'Respondent Najeeb though has tendered unconditional apology but not at the earlier stage rather at the fag-end of the proceedings and he has endeavoured to justify his conduct. So, in my view the apology tendered by respondent Najeeb is not sincere, so the same is not accepted.
22. ' In view of the above circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that respondent Muhammad Najeeb is guilty of committing contempt of this Court. I accordingly convict him under Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan read with sections 3/4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 and sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment for three (3) months and a fine of Rs,5,000 and in default thereof further S.I. For one month.
23. 'Before parting with this judgment it may be mentioned that the purpose of proceedings for contempt is to maintain the dignity, of the Court. The jurisdiction to punish for contempt is considered to be a special jurisdiction which is inherent in all the Courts as an essential concomitant to their power to preserve order in judicial proceedings and to maintain the authority of law.
24. ' Now coming to respondents 2 and 3 to the contempt petition, the matter is being left for the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab who while sitting at the apex of the Police force, I am sure, would definitely see to it that the law is followed in letter and spirit without any discrimination. A copy of this order shall be sent to him for suitable action. As he may deem fit. The copy shall be sent by the office within 7 days to the Inspector-General of Police, Punjab.
25. Petition allowed!