1969 P Cr (PLP)

On receipt of this complaint proceedings for committal of the appellant for contempt of Court were initiated, evidence recorded and the appellant ultimately found guilty. Leave was granted in this case to consider as to whether the evidence, on the record was sufficient to establish that the appellant had acted in conspiracy with the said Wali Mohammad in engineering the lodging of the false complaint against the Civil Judge and further as to whether an appeal was competent to a Division Bench of the High Court under clause (10) of the Letters Patent from the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The learned counsel, appearing before us, has not pressed the second ground on which leave to appeal was granted but has confined himself to pressing the first point. He has contended firstly that upon the evidence, even if accepted, only a case of defamation had been made out but not contempt of Court. He has also maintained that there is nothing to show that the com plaint of Wali Muhammad was engineered by the appellant or that the latter had that conspired Wali Muhammad to vilify the Civil Judge. According to the learned counsel all that the appellant did was done bona fide in the lawful discharge of his duties, in pursu ance to the directions of the Superintendent of Police, on the com plaint of the said Wadi Mohammad. Indeed it is argued that the evidence, if anything, negatives the suggestion of animus or hostility on the part of the appellant towards the said Civil Judge. If, it is said, he had really been motivated by any such base motive, lie could have procured a statement even from Mst. Inayatan, the mother‑in‑law of Mst. Shahzadi, implicating the Civil Judge. On the other hand, the statement of Mst. Inayatan, which was recorded by the appellant himself, completely absolves the Civil Judge and gives the lie to the story of Mst. Shahzadi. It may be stated here that Mst. Inayatan was at the relevant time employed as a maid‑servant in the house of the Civil Judge which was in close proximity to the house of Mst. Inayatan and the latter's daughter was given in marriage to the brother‑in‑law of Wali Mohammad in exchange for Mst. Shahzadi. We have been taken through the entire evidence in this case and it has been strenuously contended that the evidence does not make out any case of contempt of Court. We have carefully examined the evidence with the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant and it appears to us that the High Court's assessment of the evidence is, on the whole, quite fair. On the appellant's own admission lie started investigation of the complaint, brought to him by Wali Mohammad, with the endorsement of the Superintendent of Police, without even record ing a First Information Report or making any entry of any case in the general diary. Pie proceeded to the house of Mst. Shahzadi the next morning, accompanied by the complainant Wali Mohammad, three Constables and a local Zamindar, who had come to him in connection with some other matter but on the way made a detour in order to go first to the Town for obtaining two Mashirs. Thus the party, on his own showing, consisted of eight people inch‑ding himself. He also admitted that when he reached there a few more persons had collected to see what was happening. Although the ostensible purpose of the visit was only investigation yet we are not told why as many as three Constables were taken along and if they were taken along why no statement was recorded at the spot but only a Mashirnama vas prepared to merely record the factum of Mist. Shahzadi having made a statement. Why was this at all necessary in view of the fact that Mst. Shahzadi and Mst. Inayatan were promptly marched from there, along with the persons who had accompanied him and those who had collected there, back to the Police Station for recording their statement?‑-Again why on the return journey was a longer route taken which passed by the Mukhtiarkar's Office and the Court premises?‑Why at the Police Station were the statements of Mst. Inayatan, Mst. Shahzadi and Faiz Muhammad recorded with unusual publicity?‑Why was Mst. Shahzadi not got examined by the Civil Surgeon with regard to the allegation of rape?‑Above all why was nothing done thereafter to complete the investigation? These were the questions which had to be satisfactorily answered to rebut the suggestion of mala fides but the only explanation that the appellant has furnished is that he did not take any steps during the period between the 21st August 1964 and the 1st September 1964, because, he wanted to discuss the matter with the Superintendent of Police as a responsible judicial officer was involved. It is a pity that this wisdom did not dawn upon him earlier. It was only upon after the mischief had been done that he realised the gravity of the situation but even so he did nothing. His subsequent conduct belies his explanation for even after he had handed over the papers to the Additional District Magistrate's Court, he did not bother to make out or submit any written report of the action taken by him in pursuance to his Superintendent's directive. It is still more curious that even though no further steps were taken by the appellant in the matter yet Mst. Shahzadi was not returned to her husband but was placed in the custody of her uncle Yar Mohammad where she stayed until the daughter of Mst. Inayatan was returned to her mother's house. Wali Mohammad also in his evidence admitted this fact and further that on their way back from the residence of Mst. Inayatan they went to the Police Station by the route which passes by the western side of the Jail and then leads to the road on the back of the Civil Court. These admissions of the appellant and the complainant Wali Mohammad go a long way to support the complaint of the Civil Judge that things had been arranged in such a way that as much publicity as possible should be given to the matter in order to scandalise the .fudge publicly and tarnish his reputation effectively. The local Postmaster, an independent person, also confirmed that he saw a crowd passing by his office which is on the main road, led by the

5. H. O. and four or five constables. He enquired what all this was about and was informed that the Sub‑Judge had committed rape and the Police was going to arrest him. In fact this is what was being said by the people generally. The Chairman of the local Union Council also supported the version of the Civil Judge that a large crowd led by the S. H. O. and four or five policemen passed by the side of the Court premises with the S. H. O. saying "look this gentleman sits on the chair of justice and does this." This was on the way back to the Police Station, for, amongst the crowd there were also two women. He too gathered from the crowd that the Judge Saheb was accused of carrying on immoral relationship with one of those women. According to this witness ;the direct route from the town to the Police Station did not pass by the Court building but one could go round the Court building too. Both these persons, the Union Council Chairman and the Postmaster were independent witnesses. They were not connected with the Civil Judge nor have we any reason to think that they were inimical to the S. H. O. although a suggestion was made to the Chairman that he could not be well disposed towards the appellant, because, the house of his son‑in‑law was, some five days before the incident, searched by the appellant in connection with an alleged theft. Nothing has, however, been brought out in cross examination to discredit Haji Mohammad Parial, the Postmaster. On his evidence it has, in our view, been sufficiently established that the Police Officer at least went out of his way to give wide publicity to this incident, in order to vilify and stigmatize the Civil Judge, even though he knew that there was no case against him. The only thing that he had been able to get was the uncorroborated statement of Mst. Shahzadi which, by itself, was by no means sufficient, to implicate the Civil Judge on a charge of rape. The appellant, on his own admission, was conscious of the fact that a very serious allegation was being made against a very responsible judicial officer and, therefore, investigation into the case could not normally have been undertaken without the permission of the Superintendent of Police. It is not unlikely that he had also been informed by Wali Muhammad that the District Magistrate had ordered a preliminary enquiry in the matter. Knowing these facts the proper course for him to adopt would have been to await further instructions either from the Superintendent of Police or the District Magistrate or to inform the Superintendent of Police that the District Magistrate had already ordered a preliminary enquiry in the matter to ascertain the truth of the allegations made by Wali Muhammad. He did not, however, do so but instead, on his own, with three constables, two Mashirs and another visitor marched to the place, which was close to the house of the Civil Judge, through the town. Such a large posse of police led by the S. H. O. would naturally excite the curiosity of any one and collect a crowd. Furthermore the allegations of Mst. Shahzadi made in the presence of the crowd, would have, no doubt, spread the rumour throughout the town. Again the procession could not have taken the longer rout going by the side of the Court and Chamber of the Civil Judge purely by accident. These actions of the S. H. O. cannot possibly be held to be consistent with the action of a well meaning Police Officer bona fide carrying out the orders of his superior officer. The show made by the Police Officer did suggest that the Police Officer was not merely bona fide discharging a duty. His over‑zealousness was itself significant and the only purpose behind giving such undue publicity to the matter by the appellant could have been to discredit the Civil Judge in the eyes of the public. If this did not establish bad faith, then it is difficult to comprehend as to what more was required to establish this. We are in entire agreement with the High Court that the evidence did establish that whatever was done by the S. H. O. was done in bad faith with a view to vilifying and scandalizing the Civil Judge anal lowering him in the estimation of the public. Learned counsel, appearing for the appellant, has wisely not argued that such action would not amount to contempt, although at one stage it was suggested that the appellant could have been made liable in defamation but not in contempt. We are unable to accept this contention. Scandalising the Court is a well‑known form of contempt and anything which is done to bring into disrepute an officer entrusted with the duty of administering justice, such as imputing immoral or disreputable conduct to him or making wanton attacks upon his integrity and moral character are the worst possible forms of contempt that can be committed. There is no doubt that the appellant could have been made g liable in damages fox defamation in a civil action or even criminally prosecuted for it under section 500 of tire Pakistan Penal Code but that, by itself, is not enough to absolve him of the charge of contempt of Court. Under the Contempt of Courts Act it is now well established that unless the offence itself is punishable as a contempt, the offender cannot escape liability for being committed summarily for contempt also. For these reasons we are of the view that there is no substance in this appeal and it must fail. Learned counsel for the appellant has, however, pleaded that the sentence imposed is unduly severe as the appellant is only a Sub‑Inspector of Police drawing a meagre salary. We are of the view that having regard to the status of the appellant and his small remuneration the punishment imposed was on the severe side. The sentence is, accordingly, reduced to Rs. 500 which we think, would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. With this modification of the sentence, however this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed. Sentence modified.