P L D 1957 (W (PLP)

SHABIR AHMAD, J.‑

Abdur Rahman, the respondent before me, instituted a suit against Khuda Bakhsh and Rab Nawaz and others for possession of a house and its rent. The suit was decreed to some extent against Khuda Bakhsh and Rab Nawaz only on the 26th of January 1956 by Mr. Mahmood Ali Ansari. Sub‑Judge, III Class, Bahawalpur, and against that decree Rab Nawaz presented an appeal in the Court of the Senior Sub‑Judge, Bahawalpur. On the 30th of August 1956, the Senior Sub‑Judge accepted the appeal and remanded the suit for re‑decision. Against the order of remand Abdur Rehman presented a petition for revision to this Court (Civil Revision No. 30 of 1956, (Bahawalpur)). This petition was dismissed at a preliminary hearing on the 19th of December 1956, by my brother, Abdul Aziz Khan. After the dismissal of his petition for revision, Abdur Rahman respondent put in an application on the 22nd of December 1956, under Order VI, rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the Court of Sub -Judge, III Class, Bahawalpur who was dealing with the suit in consequence of the order of remand passed by the Senior Sub‑Judge on the 30th of August 1956. In paragraph 1 of this application it was stated that the petition for revision against the order of the Senior Sub‑Judge, dated the 30th of August 1956, was dismissed by the High Court on the 19th of December 1956, without taking into consideration the grounds mentioned in the petition and without giving the petitioner an opportunity to address arguments. This application was sent to this Court by the Sub‑Judge III Class, Bahawalpur, along with a report that Abdur Rahman respondent had been guilty of Contempt of Court by reason of the averments in para graph 1 of his application for amendment. On the matter coming up before me on the 19th of March 1957, I issued notice to Abdur Rahman respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for committing contempt of Court by casting aspersions on a Judge of this Court in his application dated the 22nd of December 1956. The respondent appeared before me on the 15th of April 1957, and put in a lengthy reply in which he stated inter alia that he had no intention of casting aspersions on the High Court or any of the Judges; that in fact he had not been heard before his revision petition (Civil Revision No. 30 of 1956, (Bahawalpur)) had been dismissed; that in view of the liberty of speech and expression being guaranteed by Article 8 of the new Constitution action in contempt of Court could not be taken against him and that even if it be held that he had been guilty of contempt of Court, the contempt was merely technical in nature and should not be visited with any punishment. On the 15th April the respon dent addressed quite lengthy arguments in support of his view of the matter while Mr. Anwar, Assistant Advocate‑General, West Pakistan, addressed me on the various expects of the case. On the 16th April the respondent put in an affidavit in which he said inter alia that he had not been heard by Abdul Aziz Khan, J. and that when he wanted to address arguments he was told by the Judge that he will be proceeded against for contempt of Court if he did not desist. Before dealing with the other arguments of the respondent. I will dispose of his contention that no proceedings could be taken against him because of Article 8 of the new Constitution. This contention is based on a misreading of the Article relied upon, because it is mentioned in clear terms in the Article itself that it would not affect any law which places reasonable restrictions on the liberty of speech and expression, in relation A inter alia to contempt of Court. It is not everything said or written against a Judge that amounts to contempt of Court an' it is only such utterances or writings which are calculated to bring a Court or a Judge of the Court into contempt or to lower his authority or such utterances or writings which art calculated to obstruct or interfere with due course of justica or the lawful process of the Courts that amount to it [See A I R 1936 P C 141]. The harm done by allowing aspersions to be cast on Judges will be so great that no reasonable person can doubt that the law of contempt of Court in force in Pakistan places no more than reasonable restrictions on the liberty of speech and expression guaranteed to citizens of Pakistan by our new Constitution. I am satisfied C that in spite of Article 8 of the new Constitution the respondent cannot escape punishment if he has been guilty of contempt of Court. The respondent admitted that he included in his applica tion under Order VI, rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure the passages to which exception has been taken, and in view of the fact that his application which bears his signature is on the record of this Court his admission is not unnatural. His assertion was that he had not been heard though he was present in Court and he relied on his own affidavit dated the 16th of April 1957, in support of this assertion. I examined Mr. Muhammad Ishaq who came to Bahawalpur with Mr. Justice Abdul Aziz Khan in December 1956, and was present in Court when the revision petition of the respondent was disposed of on the 19th of December 1956. Mr. Muhammad Ishaq has given a direct lie to the respondent and I accept his statement in preference to that of the respondent as I cannot bring myself to believe that my brother Abdul Aziz Khan did not afford the respondent every opportunity to show that his a petition had any merit, but even if one were to accept the assertion of the respondent that he was not heard, I do not see how the respondent can escape liability when he had asserted in paragraph 1 of his application under Order VI, rule 17 that the grounds of petition put in by him had not been taken into consideration. If a person says about a Judge that he has dealt with a case in an entirely unjudicial manner it amounts to contempt of the Court. The respondent cited A I R 1936 P C 141, A I R 1935 Lah. 212, A I R 1943 Lah. 329, A I R 1944 Lah. 196, A I R 1938 Bom. 197 and A I R 1939 Mad. 257 but none of these authorities are of any assistance to him and in fact some of them go against him. The application in which aspersions were cast on a judge of this Court implying that he had not dealt with a case in a judicial manner was put in not before a Court which could set aside the order passed by this Court but in a Court decisions of which are open to scrutiny by this Court in appeals and revisions. If the respondent had mentioned in a petition presented to the Supreme Court of Pakistan that his revision petition had been dismissed by a Judge of the High Court without affording him opportunity to be heard and without considering the grounds on which the petition was based it could possibly have been argued that as, with a view to having the order of the High Court set aside, it was necessary, to convince the Supreme Court that the litigant had not been heard the assertion did not offend against the law, but to make this allegation, whether true or false, in a petition presented to a Court which could grant no relief against the order, is to my mind entirely unjustified and as aspersions of a serious character were cast on the conduct of a Judge of this Court in his capacity as that Judge they clearly amount to contempt of Court, and I find the respondent guilty of that offence. This leaves only the question of sentence to be considered. The respondent urged that the contempt, if any, committed by him was of an entirely technical character and should be over looked, and at the conclusion of his arguments he tendered an apology at which he did not even hint in the reply he put in. If the respondent were an illiterate litigant, I would not have taken a serious view of the matter, but the respondent is not illiterate, and in fact held a licence of an Appeal‑writer which, he states, was cancelled some years ago. He has appeared before me a number of times to argue his own cases and hi, claim to be treated with the leniency which would not have been misplaced if he were an illiterate villager who could not be expected to choose his words with precision, is entirely unjustified. Moreover, it appears that he is in the habit Of casting aspersions on judicial officers as will be clear front the case Crown v. Abdur Rehman (P L D 1950 B J 36) which he admitted` related to him. In that case the respondent was sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200 but he claims that the sentence had not been undergone by him as the Bahawalpur Government had commuted it. Even if that sentence was commuted the fact remains that the respondent was convicted of a similar offence, and I, therefore, think that a deterrent sentence is called for. Consequently, I sentences the respondent to simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 1,

500. The respondent will not suffer any imprison ment if he does not pay the fine but if the fine leas not been paid within two months from today it will be recovered from him by the process of law. A. H. Respondent convicted.