P L D 1949 Lahore 392 (PLP)

SIR ABDUL RASHID, C. J.‑On the 23rd of February 1949, a petition was presented to this Court by Mian Muhammad Shafi, Advocate, High Court Lahore, praying that a notice should be issued to Ch. Qadir Bakhsh, Magistrate, 1st Class, Lahore, to show cause why he should not be committed or otherwise dealt with in accordance with law for con tempt of the Court of Mian Muhammad Salim, Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Lahore, in respect of the incident mentioned in the petition. On the 28th of February, this petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court. Notice was issued to the respondent for appearance on the 7th of March. On the date fixed, Ch. Qadir Bakhsh appeared in person and filed his written statement admitting the correctness of the affidavits of Mr. Muhammad Shafi and Mr. Shaukat Ali, Advocates and tendering an unqualified and unconditional apology. To appreciate the question of law involved in this petition it is necessary shortly to state the facts. Two persons, namely, Najmul Hassan and Said‑ur‑Rahman were joint lessees of the Regent Cinema, Mcleod Road, Lahore. On the 29th October 1948, Ch. Qadir Bakhsh, acting as Magistrate, 1st Class, served notices on the lessees under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and attached the Cinema. Both parties were directed to appear before the Magistrate on the 2nd of November. On the 1st of November Said‑ur‑Rahman instituted a civil suit against Najmul Hassan in the Court of Mian Muhammad Salim Sub‑Judge, Lahore, for declaration of his rights in the Cinema and for an injunction. Said‑ur‑Rahman also presented an application in the Court of the Sub‑Judge under Order 39, Civil Procedure Code, praying that at temporary injunction be granted against Najmul Hassan defendant ordering him not to continue with the proceedings in the Court of Ch. Qadir Bakhsh, under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure This application was taken into consideration by the learned Sub‑Judge and he granted an ad interim injunction to Said‑ur‑Rahman against Najmul Hassan defendant and fixed the 6th of November for arguments On the 2nd of November the parties appeared in the Court of Ch. Qadi Bakhsh. Said‑ur‑Rahman was represented by Mr. Muhammad Shafi Advocate, and Najmul Hassan by Malik Shaukat Ali. Malik Shauka Ali informed the Court that an ad interim injunction had been issue by Mian Muhammad Salim Sub‑Judge, against Najmul Hassan. A soon as this had been done, the respondent completely lost his temper got up from the chair, and addressed Mr. Muhammad Shafi as follows:‑ "This is a foolish order, passed by a foolish Sub‑Judge and secured by a foolish lawyer. I am not going to take notice of it. From where have you come? What is your standing? You seem to know nothing of law. You are instrumental in procuring the foolish order and as such you have committed a crime for which you could be sent behind the bars". After making these remarks, the Magistrate told Mr. Muhammad Shafi in a very contemptuous manner that he wanted to teach him a lesson so that he would be careful in future. He further told him that he was playing with fire and that the consequences of playing with fire were obvious. These remarks were made while the Magistrate was still standing and was full of rage and fury. After Ch. Qadir Bakhsh had filed his written statement accepting the truth of the allegations contained in the petition of Mr. Muhammad Shafi, it was brought to his notice that he had submitted report to this Court some time ago when his explanation had been called for in connec tion with a petition for transfer, and in this report he had stated that he had never used the words "foolish Sub‑Judge". As the two state ments of Ch. Qadir Bakhsh were clearly contradictory, he was asked why he had stated in his explanation that he had never used the words "foolish Sub‑Judge" when he was now accepting the truth of the statement made by Mr. Muhammad Shafi, Advocate, to the effect that he had said that the temporary injunction was a "foolish order passed by a foolish Sub‑Judge, and secured by a foolish lawyer". The respondent stated that he did not challenge the veracity of the statements attributed to him in the affidavits of Mr. Muhammad Shafi and Malik Shaukat Ali, Advocates, as he had no definite recollection of the words used by him and as he did not wish to contest the facts deposed to on oath by two respectable members of the Bar. The sole question for consideration is whether the statements attri buted to the respondent by Mr. Muhammad Shafi, Advocate, amount to contempt of Court. It has been laid down in section 56 (c) of the Specific Relief Act that an injunction cannot be granted to stay proceed ings in any criminal matter. The Sub‑Judge, had not granted an injunc tion staying proceedings in the Court of Ch. Qadir Bakhsh. He had only ordered Najmul Hassan one of the lessees not to conduct pro ceedings in that Court. It is very doubtful whether the Sub‑Judge was right in law in issuing such an injunction. If the Magistrate was of the opinion that such an injunction could not be legally issued by a Sub‑Judge, it was open to him to ignore the injunction and continue the proceedings. There was, however, no occasion whatever for the Magistrate to lose his temper completely, to jump up from his chair and to begin shouting at the counsel who had dared to secure such an injunction. The words used by the respondent gather ominous signi ficance when all the surrounding circumstances are taken into consideration. Mr. Manzur Qadir urged that while cases are being argued in various Courts, an order is often termed as a foolish order and that no serious notice is ever taken of such an epithet. Mr. Manzur Qadir is evidently referring to occasions when an order of a subordinate Court is being challenged in an appellate Court or in a Court of revision: In these circumstances it is the duty of the counsel to point out all the defects that exist in the order that he wishes to challenge. The counsel may legitimately submit that the order is wrong, foolish or even perverse. The atmosphere and the circumstances, in which such submissions are made are completely different from the scene created in a Court of law by Ch. Qadir Bakhsh by getting up from his chair and by hurling insult ing epithets at the counsel who had dared to obtain an injunction. In these circumstances, the remark that "this is a foolish order passed by a foolish Sub‑Judge and secured by a foolish lawyer", certainly amounts to contempt of the Court of Mian Muhammad Salim. The whole episode cannot be divided into eight or ten different incidents in order to determine whether each sentence uttered by the respondent did or did not constitute contempt of Court. For instance, when a lawyer is asked in the ordinary course by a Presiding Officer of a Court "where have you come from?" or "what is your standing?", no objection can be taken to these words. In the present case, these words were used in a contemptuous manner towards Mr. Muhammad Shafi. and the object of the whole episode was to intimidate the lawyer who had dared to secure an injunction in order to help his client Said‑ur‑Rahman against Najmul Hassan. The fact that the lawyer was meant to be intimidate so that he may not carry on further proceedings in the Court of the Sub‑Judge against Najmul Hassan is fairly evident from the following words uttered by the respondent :‑ "You are instrumental in procuring this foolish order and as such you have committed a crime for which you could be sent behind the bars". It passes one's comprehension how the act of the counsel in procuring a temporary injunction could be regarded as a crime. I am very doubt ful whether the Sub‑Judge could not pass such an order, but assuming that he could not do so, it is no crime for a counsel to ask for a tempo rary injunction. It is for the judge to determine whether he is entitled in law to issue a temporary injunction or not in a particular matter. The respondent did not finish there. He plainly told Mr. Muhammad Shafi that he wanted to teach him a lesson so that he would be careful in future. The object of this remark was to intimidate Mr. Muhammad Shafi from carrying on the proceedings on behalf of his client in the Court of the Sub‑Judge. As I have already said, the whole episode has to be regarded as one incident and cannot be split up into its component parts so that each remark may be explained away. Oswald in his book on Contempt of Court has given the following definition of the term:‑ "Contempt of Court* * *is so manifold in its aspects that it is diffi cult to lay down any exact definition of the offence. 'It is defined or described to be a disobedience to the Court, an opposing or a despising the authority, justice, or dignity thereof. It commonly consists in a party's doing otherwise than he is enjoined to do, or not doing what he is commanded or required by the process, order or decree of the Court'. Lord Hardwicke, L. C. said: There are three different sorts of contempt. One kind of contempt is scan dalising the Court itself. There may be likewise a contempt of this Court, in abusing parties who are concerned in causes here. There may be also a contempt of this Court, in prejudicing man kind against persons before the cause is heard". "To speak generally, Contempt of Court may be said to be constituted by any conduct that tends to bring the authority and administration of the law into disrespect or disregard, or to interfere with or prejudice parties, litigants or their witnesses during the litigation. Publishing improper attacks on judges of superior Courts and their juries, reflecting on their action in the administration of justice, attempting to intimidate or improperly to influence judges, or speaking contemptuous words to or of judges of inferior Courts when in the actual execution of their duty" amounts to contempt of Court. It is clear that the respondent used contemptuous words regarding Mian Muhammad Salim, Sub‑Judge, in relation to the work that he was carry ing on in the execution of his duty, that is in issuing a temporary injunc tion. If the abuse of the witnesses who appear in a Court of law is to be regarded as contempt of Court on the ground that it would intimidate other witnesses and thus impede the course of justice, it must be held that the intimidation of a lawyer, who is representing one of the parties, is also contempt of Court as it would seriously interfere with the adminis tration of justice. It is of the greatest importance that the prestige and dignity of the Courts of law should be preserved at all costs. There cannot be any thing of greater consequence than to keep the streams of justice, clear and pure, so that litigants may have the utmost confidence that they would be treated in a considerate manner by Courts of law. No Judge or Magistrate has any business to lose his temper in a Court of law, to get up from his chair and to make contemptuous remarks about other Judges or counsel appearing on either side. If parties to a litigation feel that they are likely to be subjected to insulting behaviour at the hands of the Presiding Officers of the Courts, it would shake all confi dence in the administration of justice and would thus pollute the stream of justice. It was pointed out by Chief Justice Wilmot in Rex v. Almon (1765) Wilmot's Opinions, 256, that "attacks upon the judges excited in the minds of the people a general dissatisfaction with all judicial determina tions and whenever men's allegiance to the laws was so fundamentally shaken, it is the most fatal and dangerous obstruction of justice calling out for a more rapid and immediate redress than any other obstruction ; not for the sake of the judges as private individuals but because they are the channels by which the King's justice is conveyed to the people". The remarks made by Ch. Qadir Bakhsh amount to serious contempt of the Court of Mian Muhammad Salim and it is not only to protect that Sub‑Judge as a private individual that action has to be taken against the respondent, but because the Sub‑Judge was dispensing justice and in doing his duty was representing the State. Any insulting remarks made about him would excite in the minds of the people a general dis satisfaction against all judicial proceedings. We have given anxious consideration to the question of sentence. On the one hand, the conduct of the respondent was highly objection able. He made insulting remarks about a brother judge in a very con temptuous manner. He insulted an Advocate without rhyme, reason and did not tender him any apology or redress till the date of the hear ing. On the other hand, the respondent mitigated his offence to a certain extent by tendering an unconditional apology in this Court and by admitting the correctness of the affidavits of Mr. Muhammad Shafi and Malik Shaukat Ali, Advocate. In these circumstances, I am inclined to take a lenient view of the matter and not to impose a heavy sentence. I would, therefore, find Ch. Qadir Bakhsh guilty of contempt of the Court of Mian Muhammad Salim, Sub‑Judge, and order him to pay a fine of Rs.

50. In default of payment of fine, he will suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. K. M. A.