The brief facts leading to these proceedings are that dne Musthaq Hussain filed a petition under section 491, Cr.P.C. For the recovery of. Nadeem Iqbal, his nephew from the illegal custody of S.H.O., Police Station Sambrial, District Sialkot and Rai Munir Ahmad, A.S.-I. Of the said Police Station alleging therein that Nadeem Iqbal was taken into custody by Rai Munir Ahmad, S.-I. On 9-12-2000 at 12 noon alongwith 4/5 subordinate Police officials. It was stated in the petition that Mushtaq Hussain when approached Rai Munir Ahmad, S.-I., he demanded Rs,40,000 for the release of Nadeem Iqbal though no case was registered against him.
2. The habeas petition came up for hearing on 12-12-2000 when a bailiff was deputed to recover Nadeem Iqbal from the custody of Police Officials-respondents and to produce him before this Court on 13-12-2000 with further direction to the petitioner to deposit Rs,1,000 as security. The bailiff raided Police Station Sambrial, recovered Nadeem Iqbal the detenu and produced him before this Court on 13-12-2000, According to the report of the bailiff, Nadeem Iqbal told the bailiff that he was taken into custody by Rai Munir Ahmad on 9-12-2000 at 12-00 Noon from the petrol pump and was not produced before any Magistrate by the Police. Nadeem Iqbal also complained of physical torture and showed marks of violence. The bailiff also reported that Nadeem Iqbal was not nominated in the F.I.R. In which he was alleged to have been arrested, in the Roznamcha of Police Station there was no mention of arrest of Nadeem Iqbal, Police file of case F.I.R. No,370 of 2000 was not shown to the bailiff on the pretext that Rai Munir Ahmad, S.-I. Had gone out from Police Station and the bailiff also checked the Roznamcha as to departure of Rai Munir Ahmad, S.-I. In connection with investigation of any case but there was none and since the arrest of Nadeem Iqbal was not shown in the record of Police Station the bailiff took him into custody, handed him over to Mushtaq Hussain, his real paternal uncle with direction to produce Nadeem Iqbal before this Court on 13-12- 2000.
3. On 13-12-2000, statement of Nadeem Iqbal was recorded on oath in which he too complained of physical torture at the hands of Police so I directed the bailiff to produce Nadeem Iqbal before the Deputy Medico-Legal Surgeon, Punjab, Lahore for his medical examination. Allegedly, the medical examination on the body of Nadeem Iqbal was conducted by Dr. Muhammad Afzal, Medical Officer, Office of Medico-Legal Surgeon, Punjab, Lahore which was duly verified by Dr. Nadeem Afzal Ashrafi, Surgeon Medico-Legal, Punjab, Lahore. According to report submitted by Dr. Muhammad Afzal and verified by Dr. Nadeem Afzal Ashrafi, there was no recent mark of physical violence seen on the body of Nadeem Iqbal at the time of his examination. When the case was taken up in later part of the day after receipt of the report, learned counsel for Mushtaq Hussain, petitioner in habeas petition vehemently contended that there were marks of violence on the body of Nadeem Iqbal and in fact Dr. Muhammad Afzal did not bother to get the clothes of Nadeem Iqbal removed to give a correct opinion. In the interest of justice, I directed the bailiff to produce Nadeem Iqbal before the Medical Superintendent, Mayo Hospital, Lahore with the direction to Medical Superintendent to constitute a Board of Doctors to examine the person of Nadeem Iqbal and then to submit report to this Court.
4. On 14-12-2000, report of the Medical Board consisting of Dr. Sadaqat Ali Khan, Associate Professor of Surgery, Dr. Abdul Hameed Rana, Additional Medical Superintendent, Mayo Hospital, Lahore, Dr.Saeed Ahmad, Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology Department, K.E.M.
College, Lahore and Dr. Muhammad Naeem, Assistant Professor of Neurology, Mayo Hospital, Lahore was submitted, according to which there were four injuries found on the person Nadeem Iqbal.
5. In view of the glaring difference of opinion between the report submitted by Dr. Muhammad Afzal and Dr. Nadeem Afzal Ashrafi and that of Board constituted by Medical Superintendent, Mayo Hospital, Lahore, both the Doctors Muhammad Afzal and Nadeem Afzal Ashrafi were directed to appear before this Court and to explain their position.
6. The matter was then taken up on 15-12-2000 when, both the respondents were directed to file their written reply. On the same day, Mr. Khalid Naveed Dar, Advocate was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the Court. Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, learned Additional Advocate-General was also asked to be of assistance. On 18-12-2000 after hearing both the respondents and keeping in view the conflicting reports so as to resolve the controversy, Secretary Health Government of Punjab was summoned to appear. In response to Court's direction Dr. Ijaz Bhatti, Addl. Secretary Health appeared. He was directed to take Nadeem Iqbal with him and to get him medically examined from doctors of known integrity and skill in their profession. The case was adjourned to 20-12-2000 for submission of the report by the Board to be constituted by the Additional Secretary Health, Government of Punjab. On the adjourned date, that's, 20-12-2000 Dr. Muhammad Akram, Under Secretary, Health Department, Government of Punjab placed on record the report. The second Board constituted under the direction of the Secretary Health consisted of following members:-- Dr. Muhammad Athar, Chief Chemical Examiner, Punjab, Lahore.Chairman Dr. Pervaiz A. Rana Head of Forensic Medicine, Department K.E.M.C., Lahore.Member Dr. Shahid Hanif, Head of the Department, A.I.M.C., Lahore. Member Dr. Zainab Perveen, Fatima Jinnah Medical College, E.J.M.C., Lahore.Member
7. In these circumstances, both the doctors namely Muhammad Afzal and Nadeem Afzal Ashrafi were issued notices as to why proceedings under sections 192/193/197/201/219 and 466 read with section 109, P.P.C. Be taken against them. Charge was framed, evidence was recorded and after conclusion of the trial, Dr. Muhammad Afzal was convicted under section 192 read with section 197, P.P.C. And sentenced to five years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,20,000 in default six months' S.I. And if the amount of fine was recovered, half of it was to be paid to Nadeem Iqbal. The accused was also convicted under section 197, P.P.C. And sentenced to 5 years' R.I. And to pay a fine of Rs,20,000 in default six months' S.I. And the amount of fine if recovered was ordered to be paid to Nadeem Iqbal.
Both the sentences were however, ordered to run concurrently. Similarly, Dr. Nadeem Afzal Ashrafi was convicted under section 197, P.P.C. And sentenced to five years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,20,000 in default six months' S.T. And the fine if recovered half of it was to be paid to Nadeem Afzal. This was vide order dated 5-1-2001.
8. Both the convicts filed appeals bearing Nos. 6 and 7 of 2001 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and their lordships of the Hon'ble apex Court set aside the conviction and sentence recorded under section 192, P . P . C. But maintained the conviction under section 197, P.P.C..
However, the sentence was reduced from 5 years to one year and the amount of fine was also reduced from Rs,20,000 to Rs,10,000. This was vide judgment dated 14-5-2001. Dr.Nadeem Afzal Ashrafi filed Criminal Review Petition No,19 of 2001 which was dismissed vide order dated 13-6-2001.
9. It is thus clear that the conviction and sentence of both the convicts was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
10. It was only on 20-1-2001 when I came to know after having read a news item in daily Jang, Lahore dated 20-1-2002 and then the news appearing in daily Dawn dated 21-1-2002 that after dismissal of the appeals and the review petitions from the Hon'ble apex Court, the convicts have not been arrested and the orders passed by this Court and the apex Court are not being implemented. Upon this, I moved the Hon'ble Chief Justice bringing into his notice the picture of the case and solicited appropriate orders. Upon this, my lord the Hon'ble Chief Justice was pleased to pass an order that the matter be examined on the judicial side. Accordingly, on 28-1-2002, notice of contempt was issued to S.S.P., Lahore for 29-1-2002. On the said date, S.S.P., Lahore appeared and he was directed to file his reply. A notice of contempt was also issued to Secretary Health, Government of the Punjab to appear before the Court on 1-2-2002 on which date the S.S.P.
Submitted that both the convict doctors have been arrested and sent to judicial lock-up. The Secretary Health was also directed to submit his written reply in the office. On the said date, Mr. Jari Ullah Khan, Advocate entered appearance and was marked present on behalf of the respondent Secretary and stated that he would be filing his power of attorney and the proceedings were adjourned to 8-2-2002.
11. On 8-2-2002, both the respondents were present alongwith Mr. Maqbool Elahi Malik, learned Advocate-General, Punjab. At the very outset, I asked the learned Advocate-General as to in which capacity he was appearing, that is, either as a Public Prosecutor or as a defence counsel. His reply was that since the Secretary Health and the S.S.P., Lahore are involved in this matter and the Government is feeling very much embarrassed, hence he would argue the case on behalf of the accused-respondents. The learned Advocate-General firstly submitted that the Secretary Health is holder of Sitara-i-Imtiaz, both the convicts Dr. Nadeem Afzal Ashrafi and Dr. Hassan Wasim Afzal, the Secretary Health though are real brothers but are two separate entities and that Mr.Hasan Wasim Afzal took over the charge as Secretary Health on 14-6-2001 while the review petition of the convicts was dismissed by the apex Court on 13-6-2001. He submitted that soon after taking over the charge as Secretary, the respondent directed the then Additional Secretary to obtain certified copies of judgments of the Courts. Then on 19-6-2001, the Additional Secretary deputed Deputy Secretary to obtain the copies who onward directed the D.H.O., Rawalpindi to do the needful. On 27- 6-2001, copies were applied which were received on 28-6-2001. According to the learned Advocate-General, on 23-7-2001, the file was submitted to the Secretary Health who passed orders for suspension of the convicts and also issued notices under Removal from Service Ordinance, 2000. Suspension orders were issued on 23-6-2001. In reply to the show-cause notice, Dr. Nadeem Afzal moved application for provision of copies of the inquiry. Learned Advocate-General further submits that during this period, a self-contained reference was moved to the Regulation Wing, S&GAD seeking opinion whether the convicted persons were to be afforded opportunity of defence or not. An inconclusive reply was received from the Regulation Wing and then so on and till 4-2- 2002 the matter is still in between the departments. According to the learned Advocate-General, the respondent Secretary did not delay the matter at any point of time and had been pursing the same diligently and there was no lapse on his part. Respondent Secretary also submitted that he was in not good terms with the convict for the last two years, so he had no interest to save him from the rigors of law. Further submitted that he in no way, has tried to thwart the orders of the Courts, in fact what was required of him, that he had done with full exuberance. As to appointment of Dr. Arshad Awan who appeared as a defence witness No,1 before this Court, as a Chairman of the Committee, he submitted that it was done under the orders of the Health Minister and he does not figure anywhere.
12. As, to conduct of the S.S.P., Lahore the learned Advocate-General did not utter even a single word rather the S.S.P. Himself submitted that on the direction of the Court, he deputed S.P. City to carry out the orders on the same day and that if there is any lapse on his part, he may be given apology.
13. I had asked time and again from both the respondents if they wanted to say anything more but they replied that whatever the learned Advocate-General has submitted, that was enough.
14. Before proceeding with the matter, I would like to say that the real object to proceed for contempt is to maintain in Court the confidence of the people in general and the litigant public in particular. At this stage, I may with benefit reproduce the observations made in the case of the State v. Sarni Ullah (PLD 1999 Lahore 131):-- "Historically, the States and Courts of law are as ancient as orderly States. An organized State thrives on the civilized behaviour of its citizens and laws which are just and benevolent. In the scheme of organized State, Courts are the arbiters of disputes between citizens, inter se. And citizens and State. So, the fundamental obligation of Court is to keep scales of justice even. The powers of the Courts to punish their contemners emanates from the above sacred obligation.
Majesty of Courts and supremacy of Rule of law are synonymous with orderly States regardless of their form. Hazarat Imam Ghazali in a famous work {{URDU TEXT}}said 'A State can exist on but not on injustice'. So is the paramount necessity of wholly independent and effective judiciary...."
15. The main stress of the respondent-Secretary is the affidavit purportedly sworn by Dr. Zainab Perveen, Associate Professor, Forensic Medicine, Fatima Jinnah Medical College who was the Member of the Board constituted by the then Secretary Health under the chairmanship of Dr. Muhammad Athar, Chief Chemical Examiner, Punjab, Lahore. She in her affidavit stated that she was forced to sign a fabricated report/documents by her senior colleagues as Member of the Medical Board. It is thus clear like anything that the affidavit was submitted by Dr. Zainab Perveen before the Secretary Health with ulterior purpose and in connivance with him to overthrow the judgment of this Court. This affidavit was never produced before the Hon'ble Supreme Court because it does not find mention in the order of the Hon'ble apex Court. If what has been stated by Dr. Zainab Perveen in her affidavit allegedly sworn on 8-1-2002 was correct though I have complete doubts about its genuineness and also of the date, she could have appeared before this Court. To my mind, all this seems to be manoeuvring. Had this affidavit even been brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there must have been some reference about that. Further, if it was so, as alleged by Dr. Zainab Perveen in her affidavit, then why she kept mum for such a long time. Her conduct is definitely criminal and calls for severe punishment at departmental level. Though it is not proper to further dilate on a subject which is not pending before me but the conduct of the lady doctor by virtue of which once again the whole Government machinery was put into motion has totally been ignored and till date, against this Government servant who as per her own assertion did sign the document under coercion, but no disciplinary action under the Ordinance, 2000 has been initiated whatsoever.
The learned Advocate-General, Punjab also laid much stress on the instructions contained in para. 3 of S&GAD Letter No,S.R.0.1(S&GAD) 1-71/74 dated 26-10-1975. In the same S.R.O., it has also been provided that "but if in the opinion of the authority competent to pass the order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank, the grounds which led to his conviction justify imposition of any of these penalties, that authority can pass such an order and where such a decision is taken on the ground of conduct which led to the conviction of the person concerned in a Court of law, the order can be passed without giving the person concerned a show-cause notice". I really doubt that the learned Advocate-General, Punjab was not aware of The Punjab Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 and 2001 which came into force on 18-9-2000. Section 3 sub-clause (b) of the said Ordinance reads as under:-- "Provided that no such opportunity shall be given where the competent Authority is satisfied that in the interest of security of Pakistan or any part thereof it is not expedient to give such opportunity: Provided further that no such opportunity shall be given where the accused is to be punished or removed from service or reduced in rank on the ground that of having been convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude or financial irregularity which has led to a sentence of fine or of imprisonment or where the competent Authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to give the accused an opportunity of showing cause." The words "moral turpitude" have been defined in Law Terms and Pharases Judicially Interpreted with Legal Maxims and Foreign Legal Words and Phrases in ordinary usage by Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Khan Mokal. The same is reproduced: "Tests laid down by A.P. Srivastava, J. Are (1) whether the act leading to a connection was such as could shock the moral conscience of society in general; (2) whether the motive which led to the act was a base one; (3) whether on account of the act having been committed the perpetrator could be considered to be a deprived character or a person who was to be looked down upon by the Society." In the case of Saudagar Ali v. Chairman, District Council, Multan (PLD 1963 (W.P.) Lahore 601) it was held as under:- "The expression 'moral turpitude' is not defined in the Basic Democracies Order, nor in another, statute but as generally understood, anything which is done contrary to the good principles of morality involves moral turpitude, i,e, anything that injures the moral fiber of a person and lowers him down in moral values. In Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon the phrase is defined as follows:-- Anything done contrary to justice, honesty, principles, or good morals; an act of baseness, vileness, or depravity in the private and social duties which man owes to his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man'.
A term not clearly defined.--What constitutes moral turpitude, or what will be held such, is not entirely clear. A contract to promote public wrong, short of crime, may or may not involve it. If parties intend such wrong, as where they conspire against the public interests by agreeing to violate the law or some rule of public policy, the act doubtless involves moral turpitude. Everything done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or good morals is done with turpitude, so that embezzlement involves moral turpitude." In the precedent case, the act of obtaining transfer of the evacuee land without making a declaration was held to be moral turpitude. In the instant case, both the doctors were convicted under section 192, P.P.C. Which conviction was maintained by the Hon'ble apex Court. Section 192, P.P.C. May be reproduced:- "192. Fabricating false evidence.--Whoever causes any circumstance to exist or makes any false entry in any book or record, or makes any document containing a false statement, intending that such circumstances, false entry or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceedings, or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such, or before an arbitrator that such circumstance, false entry or false statement, so appearing in evidence, may cause any person who in such proceedings is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceedings, is said 'to fabricate false evidence'." I am, thus, of the considered opinion that the act of the convicts doctors amounted to moral turpitude. Over and above this, section 11 of Ordinance IV of 2000 reads as under:-- "11. Ordinance to override other laws.---The provisions of this Ordinance shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 (VIII of 1974) and the rules made thereunder and any other law for time being in force." In the instant case, both the convicts were tried by this Court. They were given full opportunity to defend themselves and they produced the best possible evidence at their command to defend themselves. For the sake of both the convicts so that no injustice is done to them. Two Boards were constituted, one by the Medical Superintendent, Mayo Hospital, Lahore and the other none else but by the Secretary Health but since the convicts failed to establish their innocence, this Court pronounced the verdict of guilt against them which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. The verdict of conviction having been upheld by the august apex Court, there was absolutely no necessity later on to order for any inquiry. The conviction having been maintained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the matter cannot be left to the discretion of the Secretary concerned but he was under a legal obligation to terminate the services of the convicts because the conviction by all means is a blot on the service career of the convicts and no notice was required to be issued in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Above this, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was final in this shape and as such no further inroads can be made into it for making out a lame excuse viz. To save the near and dear ones. Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 caters for such-like situation by saying that all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law. This act of the respondent-Secretary tantamounts to gross contempt of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is a dare devil act on the part of the respondent-Secretary. He is also guilty of frustrating the order of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. To my mind, it was a cunning attempt on the part of the respondent- Secretary. At this stage, I may advantageously reproduce the concluding paragraph, that is, para. 11 of the summary sent to the Governor on 13-9-2001 on the basis of the affidavit sworn by Dr. Zainab Perveen. The same reads as under:- "Since this case involves questions of law, it is being routed through the Law Department for their comments, for if the prima facie guilt of the senior doctors as established in the preliminary inquiry is confirmed, the case would warrant a remission of sentence by the competent authority."
(Underlining is mine) A bare perusal of the above-quoted para. Would show that all this was being done just to frustrate the order of conviction passed by this Court and upheld by the apex Court of the country. Moreso, it is interesting to note that according to Rules of Business the Secretary is the official head of the Department and is responsible for its efficient administration and the discipline but the aforesaid summary was submitted by the Additional Secretary (Adorn.) to the Minister for Health, bypassing the Secretary. There is no mention of the fact as to whether the Secretary was on leave or was not available for any reason. This all sma cks of cunningness and mala fide just to help out a convict who happens to be real brother of the Secretary Health. All this exercise was got done to find inroads in the judgments of the superior Courts rather amounts to sitting over the judgments and in this manner he wanted to have done which could not otherwise have been done in accordance with law. The conduct of the respondent-Secretary is in violation of the command of Article 190 of the Constitution which ordains that all executive and judicial authorities throughout Pakistan shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. It has come on record that show-cause notices were sent by the Health Department at the home addresses of the convicts. It means that the Secretary Health was fully aware of the fact that both the convicts in spite of their conviction having been maintained by the Hon'ble apex Court have not surrendered themselves. Had the Secretary Health believed in rule of law, he should have asked his convict brother and his co-accused to surrender but he has not done so. It was only when this Court took notice of the news item appearing in the dailies with the permission of Hon'ble the Chief Justice that both the convicts were taken into custody. In view of all these glaring facts on the face of the record, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondent-Secretary to say that he acted in accordance with law and did not show any favour. In my considered opinion he had been pulling the wires while sitting behind the curtain. There is also a letter from Professor Dr. Aftab Ahmad, President, Pakistan Medical Association, Lahore dated 31-12-2001 addressed to Hon'ble the Chief Justice alongwith Press clippings. This letter was being processed in the office of the High Court and now is part of record of this case. The letter written by President of Pakistan Medical Association reads as under:-- "May I bring to your kind notice the press clippings of the daily 'Dawn', Lahore dated 24-11-2001, the 'Dawn', Lahore dated 8-12-2001 and the daily 'The News', Lahore dated 29-12-2001' which depict clearly how the beaurocracy of Health Department, Punjab is flouting the decisions of the apex Courts of Pakistan. Incidentally the present Health Secretary, Punjab Mr. Hassan Waseem Afzal is the elder brother of Dr. Nadeem Afzal who was initially convicted 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs,20,000 for a fabricated medico-legal report by Mr. Justice Khawaj a Muhammad Sharif of Lahore High Court (No,2619/M/2000). The Supreme Court of Pakistan later reduced it to one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs,10,000 on May 14, 2001 (CrI.A.No,7/2001). But Secretary Health is fully protecting his brother who is still drawing salary from the Health Department and has not been arrested. The Secretary Health has presented distorted facts about the decisions of the Courts to the Governor of the Punjab. He thus, managed to start an inquiry under Removal from Service Ordinance, 2000 of the doctors who were Members of the Board, which reviewed the Medico-Legal Report given by Dr. Nadeem Afzal." The next submissions made by the learned Advocate-General was ,that it was a chance that present Secretary Health was real brother of one of the accused and was posted just a day after the dismissal of the review petition by the apex Court and during all this period, according to him, he has been doing honestly all the acts which the status of his office so demanded. I think, it is a far-fetched reality to agree with the Advocate-General as it is against human nature that a real brother would not come to the rescue of his younger brother when the elder was, a person in authority specially in our society. It is very important to note that in para. 6 of the reply submitted by the Secretary he has submitted that the convicts were put under suspension with effect from 13-6-2001. Conviction was recorded against the two convicts by this Court on 5-1-2001. Appeals before the Hon'ble apex Court were dismissed on 14-5-2000 though with reduction in the quantum of sentence and the amount of fine.
Review petition was dismissed on 13-6-2001. The convicts thus would be deemed to have been convicted on 5-1-2001 and not on 13-6-2001. This all was done intentionally and with mala fide.
From the file produced by the learned Advocate-General, Punjab at para. 83 of the noting part, it is clear that Dr. Nadeem Afzal was placed under suspension with effect from 5-1-2001 and was reinstated on 3-3-200L Then again on 23-7-2001 he was placed under suspension with effect from 13-6-2001. It is not understandable as to how the convict doctor was reinstated on 3-3-2001 and then placed under suspension on 13-6-2001. It may be noted that sentence of the convicts was suspended by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 16-1-2001 but the judgment remained in the field.
It is thus established that right from the date of final verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there was somebody who was supervising and monitoring the whole file from one place to another with the result that eyes were intentionally closed when Dr.Muhammad Arshad Awan D.W.1 was appointed as Chairman of the Inquiry Committee who had already appeared as a defence witness to support their version itself confirms the happening subsequently that efforts were made through hidden hands to absolve the convicted persons while acting in a mala fide manner and also by committing illegal omissions. Apart from these illegalities and mala fides committed by the Secretary Health, he also caused a great loss to the State Exchequer by paying the convict doctors the salaries from 5-1-2001 till today. I wonder how the Members of the second Board constituted under the direction of the Additional Secretary Health are being penalized when the 2nd Board affirmed the finding of the first Board. I am purposefully refraining myself from making any further comments.
The S.S.P., Lahore had become a tool in the hand of the respondent-Secretary in not arresting the convicts though warrants were issued against them by this Court being the trial Court. It is unfortunate that he did not realize his responsibility towards discharge of his statutory legal duties rather he put spanner in the wheels of justice. He in order to shift his responsibility, made his juniors scapegoats by suspending them and initiating disciplinary proceedings. He being the Supervisory Officer of the District Police was under a legal obligation to keep a watch on his subordinates specially when news items were appearing in the daily newspapers a clipping of which I am sure, must have reached him through his Public Relations Officer. I really wonder fromwhere the A.S.-I.
Muhammad Ashiq, came to know that the convict doctors have been dismissed from service when in fact till today, their services have not been terminated. Had the S.S.P., Lahore taken a little pain to care for the news items appearing in daily newspapers, the position of lawlessness would not have prevailed in not arresting the convicts. It was only on 29-1-2002 that a special team has been constituted by the S.S.P., Lahore under the direct supervision of the S.P. (City) when on 28-1-2001 this Court took cognizance of the matter. Prior to this, he had been watching the drama as a silent spectator for the last more than six months. According to reply submitted by the S.S.P., both the convict doctors have been arrested on 28-1-2001 and 29-1-2002. It means that the convicts were being not arrested as per wishes/desire of the S.S.P. The act of the S.S.P. Is being taken by this Court as a sabotage to judicial decisions of the superior Courts. In the case of State v. Sir Edward Snelson K.B.E. Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Law (PLD 1961 (W.P.) Lahore 78) it was observed as under:- "When the Central Government of Pakistan is a party in a proceedings before a Court of law, however, humble the Court may be, it has no better rights than any other party to the proceedings before that Court." Now. I would take up the apology tendered by the respondents. First of all, both the respondents never tendered the apology in their replies in the first instance. It was only on the pointation of the Court after completion of the proceedings when in the presence of the Court, both the respondents tendered their apology. The apology tendered in the writing by respondent-Secretary reads as under:-- "I hereby tender my unqualified apology for any lapse on my part in these proceedings." The apology tendered by the S.S.P. Reads as under:-- "I tender unconditional apology for any fault at my part."
So far as apology tendered by the respondents is concerned, their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sher Ali and others v. Sheikh Zahoor Ahmad (PLD 1977 Supreme Court 545) ruled out that an apology does not furnish a complete defence to a charge of contempt of Court. In the case of Shahid Orakzai v. Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz Group) and 8 others (2000 SCM R 1969) it has been ruled that tendering of unconditional apology amounts to admission of the charge and that the apology must be offered at the earlier stage of the contempt proceedings and may not be postponed till the fag-end of the proceedings, the apology must be unconditional, unreserved and unqualified, 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 that the contemner should not Endeavour to justify his conduct. Seen the apology tendered by the respondents in the light of principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, first of all, it was never offered at the earliest, rather it was only on the pointation of the Court. The apology does not reflect sincere and genuine repentance and is half-hearted. The respondents have tried to justify their conduct first by arguing the case at full length. To my mind, it was fractured apology.. The object of awarding punishment to a person is two-fold, namely, that he should be sentenced for violating the law and secondly a deterrence in the like-minded person who without caring for the consequences do wrongs and violate the law. After having examined the replies submitted by both the respondents and the submissions made by the learned Advocate-General, I have come to the conclusion that guilt against both the respondents stands proved beyond any shadow of doubt. So, first of all I would take up the case of respondent Secretary Health. He is found to be guilty of gravest form of contempt of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He has also misused his official capacity in order to save his brother and his co-accused. His act amounts to bring the authority of the Courts into disrespect, disrepute, interference, and prejudicing the process of law. So, he is convicted under sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Court Act read with Article 204 of the Constitution and sentenced to three (3) months'
S.I. With further direction to pay Rs,5,000 as fine, in default thereof to undergo S.I. For one month. So far as S.S.P., Lahore Aftab Ahmad Cheema respondent is concerned he is convicted under sections 3/4 of the Contempt of Court Act read with Article 204 of the Constitution and sentenced to undergo 15 days with further direction to pay fine of Rs,1,000 in default 7 days' Si. At this stage, while showing magnanimity, I am inclined to suspend the sentence of the respondents for 10 days by virtue of application of 382-A, Cr.P.C. To enable them to file appeal against this order before the proper forum subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,10,000 with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar (J) of this Court. Before parting with this order, I am at pains to note that Mr. Maqbool Elahi Malik, learned Advocate- General, Pubjab who is a very Senior Advocate and has, remained as Advocate-General, Punjab for 2/3 times before should have in fact come in the aid of criminal administration of justice and to maintain the dignity of the Courts but instead he opted to become a defence counsel. Moreover, while doing this, he was definitely on the wrong side of law.