HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.--This criminal petition for leave to 'appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27-6-2002 in Criminal Appeal No,997 of 2002 (Muhammad Mushtaq v. The State), passed by learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the said appeal was dismissed maintaining the conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gujranwala as per his judgment dated 20-6-2002.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner made forced entry suddenly in the retiring room of the Additional District Judge when he was dictating an order when the former stated that he was Naib Qasid of the Senior Civil Judge, Rawalpindi and that Nisar Ahmad petitioner in Bail Application No,112 of 2002 an accused in the case F.I.R. No,157 of 2002 registered under sections 420/468/471, P.P.C. At Police Station Noushera Virkan was his brother-in-law and thereby he interrupted the said Judicial Officer in the judicial proceedings consequently the petitioner was charged on the same date for the said commission of offence under section 228, P.P.C. To which in writing he pleaded guilty and prayed to be excused. After recording the petitioner's own plea of guilt, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the petitioner under section 228, P.P.C. And sentenced him to one month S.I. The petitioner appealed before the High Court which appeal was dismissed as per impugned judgment, hence this petition.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the petitioner was tried and convicted under section 228, P.P.C. And sentenced on the same day of the incident therefore provisions of section 480, Cr.P.C. Would be attracted whereunder petitioner could have been at the most sentenced to fine not exceeding Rs,200 and in case of default of payment to simple imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month unless such fine is sooner paid, therefore petitioner's conviction under section 228, P.P.C. Cannot be legally sustained. He has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court reported in Irshad Ahmad v. The State 1992 SCM R 1229.
5. We do not find substance and merit in the said contention.
6. Section 228 of P.P.C. Reads as under:-- "Whoever intentionally offers any insult, or causes any interruption to any public servant, of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Section 480, Cr.P.C. Reads as under:-- "480. Procedure in certain cases of contempt.--(1) When any such offence as is described in section 175, section 178, section 179, section 180 or section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code is committed in the view or presence of any Civil, Criminal or Revenue Court, the Court may cause the offender to be detained in custody and at any time before the rising of the Court on the same day may, if it thinks fit, take cognizance of the offence and sentence the offender to the fine not exceeding two hundred rupees, and, in default of payment, to simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, unless such fine be sooner paid." Section 480 of the Criminal Procedure Code deals with the procedure in certain cases of contempt as described in section 175, section 178, section 179, section 180 or section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Section 195(1)(b), Cr.P.C. Also deals with prosecution for offences against public justice when offence punishable under sections 193, 194, 195, 196, 199, 200, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 and 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code is committed. Procedure has been laid down under section 476, Cr.P.C.
For the trial of the offences referred to in section 195, subsection (1), clause (b), Cr.P.C. Whereunder Court can take cognizance of such offence and try the same in accordance with the procedure prescribed for summary trial in Chapter XXII. Section 228, P.P.C. Falls within the purview of section 195, subsection (1), clause (b), Cr.P.C. Therefore the cognizance of the said offence could be taken by the Court and the offender could be tried in accordance with the procedure prescribed for summary trial in Chapter XXII, Cr.P.C. Section 480, Cr.P.C. Also has provided procedure in cases of contempt falling under sections 175, 178, 179, 180 or section 228, P.P.C. The Court has option to proceed either under section 480, Cr.P.C. Or section 476, Cr.P.C. For trial of offences under section 228, P.P.C. Reference may be made to the case of Emperor v. Ram Lal Anand (AIR 1940 Lah. 233), where the learned Judge in Chambers, in the concluding para. At page 236, has observed as under:-- "In my opinion therefore, in the case of a contempt committed coram judice and punishable under section 228, I.P.C., a Court has the option of proceeding either under S.480 to 482, Criminal P.C.Or under section 476 In the case of Bachai Singh v. State (AIR 1959 Allahabad 693 (V 46 C 196), in view of the contention raised, that the offender could have been proceeded against only in the manner laid down in section 480 or 482 Cr.P.0 , in reply the learned Judge in Chambers held as under:-- "There is no force in this contention. The provisions in sections 480 and 482 are not exhaustive and do not derogate from the power of a Court to take cognizance of the offence under section 190(1)
(a) on a complaint under sections 195, Cr.P.C. The provisions of sections 190(1)(a) and 195, are not at all affected by those of sections 480 and 482. 'Cognizance of an offence punishable under section 228, I.P.C. Can be taken on a complaint of the Court concerned or the offender may be dealt with by the Court concernedas laid down in sections 480 or 482, Cr.P.0 The word used in section 480 is "may"; it means that section 480 is only an enabling section and confers power upon the Court concerned to punish the offender summarily instead of having him tried regularly on a complaint.
There is nothing to suggest that the power of the Court aggrieved by the offence punishable under section 228, I.P.C. Is simply to punish the offender under section 480 or to forward him to Magistrate as laid down in section 482. The power conferred under section 482 is alternative to the power conferred under section 480 of sentencing the offender summarily to a fine not exceeding Rs,200.
The power of section 482 is to be exercised only when part of the power conferred by section 480, namely, that of detaining the offender in custody has been exercised but, as I said earlier, the power of detaining the offender in custody is not the only power of the Court aggrieved by the offence and its power of making a complaint of the offence as laid down in section 195 remains intact.
(4) No authority taking a contrary view was cited before me...."Reference may also be made to M.
Muhammad Akram Warraich v. Mr. Ata Muhammad Naz, Civil Judge (1989 MLD 3319), wherein learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court held that insult or contempt of Court committed inside Court and at the very face of Judge case would fall under section 228, P.P.C. And would be triable under section 476, Cr.P.C. And the Judge would not be divested of his jurisdiction from trying the offender under section 228, P.P.C. Read with section 476, Cr.P.C. Same view was taken by learned Judge in Chambers in the case of Ghulam Shabbir v. The State and another 1991 M LD 487, in para.2 at page 491 as under:- "There is no force in this contention. The provisions in sections 480 and 482 are not exhaustive and do not derogate from the power of a Court to take cognizance of the offence under section 190(1)
(a) on a complaint under section 195, Cr.P.C. The provisions of sections 190(1)(a) and 195 are not at all affected by those of sections 480 and 482. Cognizance of an offence punishable under section 228, I.P.C. Can be taken on a complaint of the Court concerned or the offender may be dealt with by the Court concernedas laid down in section 480 or 482, Cr.P.C., here the offenders have been dealt with as laid down in sections 190(1)(a) and 195. The word used in section 480 is "may"; it means that section 480 is only an enabling section and confers power upon the Court concerned to punish the offender summarily instead of having him tried regularly on a complaint. There is nothing to suggest that the power of the Court aggrieved by the offence punishable under section 228, I.P.C. Is simply to punish the offender under section 480 or to forward him to a Magistrate as laid down in section 482. The power conferred under section 482 is alternative to the power conferred under section 480 of sentencing the offender summarily to a fine not exceeding Rs,200. The power of section 482 is to be exercised only when part of the power conferred by section 480, namely, that of detaining the offender in custody has been exercised but, as I said earlier, the power of detaining the offender in custody is not the only power of the Court aggrieved by the offence and its power of making a complaint of the offence as laid down in section 195 remains intact." Reference may also be made to decision of this Court in Irshad Ahmed v. The State 1992 SCM R 1229, wherein at page 1237 it was observed:-- "The offence under section 228, P.P.C. Involved in the present case is mentioned in section 195(1)(b).
Thus its cognizance could be taken by the Presiding Judge of the same Court under section 476, Cr.
P. C . The objection of the learned counsel for the appellant that a condition in clause (1)(b) of section 195, is that the trial of the offence mentioned therein cannot take place except as provided therein namely, 'on complaint in writing of such Court or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate'. The argument is obviously untenable. This condition cannot be relatable to the cognizance under section 476, Cr.P.C. Wherein the reference to section 195, Cr.P.C. Is only to the extent of lifting up the specification of the offences therein and does not extend to the conditions laid therein. This view is supported by the fact that the cognizance under section 476, Cr.P.C. Is by the same Court or in relation to the proceedings wherein the offence has been committed. The condition relating to submission of a complaint in section 195, Cr.P.C. Could not have been visualized in the manner suggested by the \learned counsel; namely, that the same Court should make a complaint of the offence to itself under section 476, Cr.P.C. Read with section 195, Cr.P.C.
This was never intended and that is why the reference under section 476 of section 195, Cr.P.C. Is in the simple language as follows:-- When any offence referred to in section 195, subsection (1), clause (b) or clause (c), has been committed in or in to, a proceeding in any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, the Court may take cognizance of the offence and try the same in accordance with the procedure prescribed for summary trials in Chapter XXII.' The argument, accordingly has no force. Learned counsel for the appellant then contended that the learned trial Judge in this case was not conscious of his having proceeded under section 476, Cr.P.C. And thus conditions of a summary trial in Chapter XXII, were not satisfied. We do not agree with him. The perusal of the proceedings and comparison with the provisions of Chapter XXII with particular reference to the plea of guilty made by the appellant before the learned trial Judge makes it amply clear that the proceedings were under section 476 read with the provisions contained in Chapter XXII. Thus this argument also has no force."
7. There is nothing in section 228, P.P.C. Read with section 476, Cr.P.C. Which prevents the Court in whose presence an offence under section 228, P.P.C. Is committed relating to judicial proceedings from trying the said offender. There is nothing in section 228, P.P.C. That in case an offence under section 228, P.P.C. Is committed by an offender and if he is to be tried for the said offence and convicted on the same date then in view of section 480, Cr.P.C. He would only be tried and sentenced to fine of rupees two hundred. A perusal of the relevant provisions as reproduced above would show that, it was optional for the Court concerned in whose presence an offence has been committed either to proceed for an offence under section 228, P.P.C. Read with section 476, Cr.P.C.
Or to proceed against the offender under section 480 or 482, Cr.P.C. No plea has been raised with regard to the fact that no offence under section 228, P.P.C. Was committed. The only plea raised as said above was with regard to the applicability in the circumstances of the case of section 480, Cr.P.C. Wherein the petitioner could have been convicted and sentenced to fine of rupees two hundred. We have gone through the entire record. We find that an offence under section 228, P.P.C.
Was committed by the petitioner and he was dealt with as provided under section 476, Cr.P.C. And convicted and sentenced under section 228, P.P.C. Accordingly by the learned trial Court which decision was affirmed by the learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court. Irshad Ahmed's case (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner instead of helping him in the case, supports the prosecution case as observed above. However, in the above-cited case the offender was pardoned and such concession was given to him when in fact he had only entered the Court-room being Nazir of the Court to drag out two applicants who were present there for bail.
In the instant case, the petitioner/offender had without any permission, suddenly entered into the Chamber of the Hon'ble Judge and informed him that Nisar Ahmad the petitioner an accused, on whose bail petition an order was to be passed, was his brother-in-law which act of the petitioner amounted to gross contempt and thereby said act fell within the purview of offence under section 228, P.P.C. Read with section 476, Cr.P.C. However, in view of the fact that the applicant/accused has served out the sentence and the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for the lenient view, therefore while maintaining the conviction and sentence under section 228, P.P.C. The sentence of simple imprisonment is converted into sentence of fine of rupees two hundred only and in case of default in payment of fine, he would undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month which he has already undergone. This petition is accordingly converted into appeal and partly allowed.