1. K. HOSSAIN, J.-In this writ petition Sakhawat Hossain has challenged his conviction by the Chawk Bazar Union Council Conciliation Court dated 20-12-66 and the sentence of fine of Rs. 100.
2. Facts as have emerged from the affidavits of the parties are that respondent No. 6 Muzaffar Hossain alias Suba Mia filed a complaint before the Chawk Bazar Union Council Conciliation Court regarding properties, which admittedly are without the jurisdiction of the Conciliation Court. But summons were issued and both parties appeared and chose their representatives to constitute the Conciliation Court. On 3-12-66 both the parties led evidence and it was found that the petitioner in this Court, who was opposite-party before the Conciliation Court refused to produce some documents which he was directed by the Concili--ation Court to produce. In the meantime both parties started quarrelling before the members of the Conciliation Court and it is alleged that the petitioner before this Court abused in filthy language respondent No. 6, the complainant in the Concili--ation Court in the presence of the said Court. The petitioner was therefore found guilty under section 12 and under sections 504 and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code falling under section A of Part I of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961 and he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100.
3. The petitioner moved the Sub-Divisional Officer (Sadar) South against his conviction but got no relief.
4. Dr. Zahir, appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the conviction of the petitioner is without jurisdiction inas--much as the case before the Conciliation Court being admittedly without jurisdiction, it was not a Conciliation Court functioning as such within the meaning of section 12 of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance. Mr. Yeasin, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondents urged that the petitioner submitted to thejurisdiction of the Conciliation Court, representatives of the parties were chosen, several adjournments were taken by the parties, and on that day the parties led evidence and thereafter the Conciliation Court itself found that the matter before it was outside its jurisdiction and so it cannot be said that there was no Conciliation Court or that it was not functioning as such. The contention of the learned Advocate for the respondent is of substance and so Dr. Zahir's contention that the Conciliation Court was not functioning as such must fail.
5. The next contention of Dr. Zahir is that the petitioner cannot be punished under sections 504 and 506 without a proper proceeding upon a proper complaint and charge framed in a regular trial, may be before the Conciliation Court but not in the summary fashion without any trial or evidence as has been done in the present case. This contention is of substance and must be upheld. The Conciliation Court can only try summarily without any evidence or proper trial certain kinds of contempts of Court under section 12 of the Ordinance. It is therefore to be seen whether the Conciliation Court can punish the petitioner for contempt of Court under section 12 of the Ordinance.
6. The provision of section 12 may be quoted:- "
12. A person shall be guilty of contempt of a Concili--ation Court if he without lawful excuse:-- Offers any insult to the Conciliation Court or any member thereof while the Court is functioning as such; or
(b) causes any interruption in the work of the Conciliation Court; or
(c) fails to produce or deliver a document when ordered by the Conciliation Court to do so; or
(d) refuses to answer any question of the Conciliation Court which he is bound to answer, or
(e) refuses to take oath to state the truth or to sign any statement by him when required by the Conciliation Court to do so; and the Conciliation Court may, without any complaint having been made to it, forthwith try such person for such contempt and sentence him to a fine of fifty rupees."
7. From the reading of the order of the Conciliation Court it is found that though there is a reference to the petitioner refusing to produce certain documents required by the Conciliation Court, yet the finding of guilt of the petitioner in abusing in filthy language to respondent No. 6 in the presence of the said Court. Dr. Zahir has rightly contended that there being no 6 finding that the petitioner has insulted the Court or any of its members or has been interrupting its proceedings, the petitioner could not be convicted for contempt of Court as provided under section 12 of the said Ordinance.
8. This contention of Dr. Zahir is upheld.
9. Lastly Dr. Zahir has contended that the maximum punish--ment under section 12 of the Ordinance, is Rs. 50 whereas the petitioner has been fined Rs. 100 which is in excess of the jurisdiction of the Conciliation Court. Mr. Yeasin, the learned Advocate for the respondents concedes this point.
10. It is therefore, found that the conviction of the petitioner for contempt under section 12 and under sections 504 and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code under Section A of Part I of the said Ordinance passed by the Chawk Bazar Union Council Concili--ation Court are without lawful authority and of no legal effect and the order of the learned Sub-Divisional Officer (Sadar) South as per memo. No. P. 309/67-D. H. 16-5-67 directing the petitioner to pay the fine of Rs. 100 and the-order dated 16- 5..67 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar (South) rejecting the petition of the petitioner for setting aside the order of the conviction passed by the Conciliation Court are without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
11. The rule is, therefore, made absolute but without any order as to cost.
12. SIDDIKY, C. J.--I agree.