P L D 1990 Peshawar 116 (PLP)

In a habeas corpus petition, bearing No.252/89 Muhammad Riaz S.H.O., P.S. Haripur, who was arraigned as respondent No.2 therein, attended this Court firstly on 13‑12‑1989 and later on 20‑12‑1989 when he was directed to produce the detainee on 13‑1‑1990. On this date he absented himself and was reportedly transferred to P.S. Bagnotar. He was, therefore, summoned alongwith his successor‑in‑office, Muhammad Farid S.H.O., P.S. Haripur, in order to ascertain as to why one of them failed to appear on the date fixed in the case and to apprise the Court about the progress made therein as per order of this Court dated 20‑12‑1989. Both the S.H.Os. presented themselves on 24‑1‑1990. On query from S.H.O. Muhammad Riaz, he admitted that, while being transferred, he forgot to leave any notes behind for his successor‑in‑office to attend this Court . on 13‑1‑1990.

2. It was in consequence of this failure on his part that none attended the Court from Police Department on the said date. This conduct of Sub‑Inspector Muhammad Riaz, the Ex‑S.H.O., P.S. H.aripur, ostensibly tended to bring the authority of this Court into disrespect as also to obstruct the due process of judicial proceedings initiated in the habeas corpus petition; thus affording me ample grounds for believing that he had committed contempt of Court. Accordingly, I deemed it necessary, in the interest of effective administration of justice, to proceed against him under the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 and framed a charge against him vide my order dated 24‑1‑1990.

3. The contemner was informed of the grounds on which he was charged and called upon to show cause why he should not be punished therefor. He was, therefore, ordered to submit his reply in writing by 24‑2‑1990.

4. Muhammad Riaz contemner submitted his reply on 21‑2‑1990 wherein he has tried to explain his inadvertence. He further tendered his unqualified apology and placed himself at the mercy of the Court with a prayer that he may be forgiven.

5. On 24‑2‑1990 the contemner appeared alongwith Abdullah Jan Mirza, Advocate and Sardar Nasir Aslam, Advocate while Muhammad Aslam Khan, Assistant Advocate‑General appeared for the State.

6. I have heard the learned counsel as also the learned Assistant Advocate‑General at length and perused the explanation made, as well as the unqualified apology tendered, by the contemner; with considerable degree of care.

7. It is submitted on behalf of the contemner that it was simply in consequence of the order of his transfer, received telephonically, with a directive to leave the Police Station, Haripur within an hour and to assume the charge of P.S. Bagnotar; that, in haste and due to inadvertence, he could not inform, or leave a note behind for, his successor‑in‑office about the requisite appearance before this Court on 13‑1‑1990 and that it was the least intentional. It was further submitted that by tendering unqualified apology and placing himself at the mercy of the Court, the contemner has purged himself of the contempt and as such he deserves to be forgiven. He relied on the case of Raja Munawar and others v. State reported as 1990 SCMR

215. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General did not seriously controvert what is stated by the learned counsel for the contemner.

8. I have given my serious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the contemner as also the learned Assistant Advocate?-General.

9. Although the reasons advanced by the contemner for his inadvertence to appear in the Court on the date fixed, his positive knowledge about it notwithstanding, are not so convincing as to be countenanced with impunity; yet I have noticed and an sanguine that the repentance shown and apology tendered by the contemner appear to be genuine. Furthermore, in the case of Fakhar‑e?Alam v. The State, reported in PLD 1973 SC 525 the learned Judges of the Supreme Court were pleased to hold that:‑‑ "The contemner having thrown himself unconditionally at the mercy of the Court, the contempt stood purged." In this view of the matter, I believe the contemner has made out a case of forebearance. Consequently while accepting the unqualified apology tendered by the contemner Muhammad Riaz, former S.H.O., Police Station, Haripur, I hereby discharge him with administering him a warning albeit that howsoever justifiable the excuse may be, he should be extremely careful in such like cases, in future. N.H.Q./1009/P ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Accused discharged.