1973 SCMR 61 (PLP)
YUSUF ALI KHAN‑ — Petitioner Versus ATTORNEY‑GENERAL OF PAKISTAN‑ — Respondent
| Citation | 1973 SCMR 61 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | YUSUF ALI KHAN‑ — Petitioner Versus ATTORNEY‑GENERAL OF PAKISTAN‑ — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1973 SCMR 61 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1973 SCMR 61 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1973 SCMR 61 (PLP) (YUSUF ALI KHAN‑ — Petitioner Versus ATTORNEY‑GENERAL OF PAKISTAN‑ — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdullah Anwar Beg, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abid Nawaz Abid, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner:
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 25th January 1972.
- SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑The petitioner, who is a Barrister and a practising Advocate, has been convicted by this Court in proceedings for contempt under Article 123 of the 1962‑Con stitution, and sentenced to simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, or, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for 15 days, by its judgment dated the 18th of January 1972. He now seeks a review of that judgment, and the main ground urged is that it is incorrectly recorded in the judgment that in his statement before the Court, the petitioner had withdrawn as false all the allegations made by him against the Chief Justice and the Judges of this Court, in his application to the President, which formed the subject‑matter of the contempt proceedings. The petitioner's typed statement, which is on record, was duly signed by him, and it is a futile attempt on his part to wriggle out of it. I his statement, whereby he expressed his repentance and unqualified apology, was considered by the Court as an extenuating circumstance for the award of the sentence to him for his action, which constituted grave contempt for having humiliated and scandalised this Court in full blast. The impression one gets is that he made that statement to express his sorrow and apology to soften the Court at that time for a lenient treatment, and having gained that object, he is now retracting from it in an endeavour to urge that the offensive application sent by him to the President contained allegations which were true and made in good faith, and that he is pro tected in that action by Article 128 (5) of the 1962‑Constitution.
Headnotes / Summary
Supreme Court Rules, 1956, O. XXVI‑Review‑Person hauled in for contempt before Supreme Court submitting signed statement withdrawing therein as false all allegations made by him against Judges of Court‑Such statement taken into consideration by Court and lenient punishment imposed‑Having gained his object application made to Supreme Court for review of judgment alleging that applicant never made any apologetic statement before Court mention of which had been made in judgment‑Action of person held further contumacious‑No valid ground for review‑Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SAJJAD AHMAD, J.‑The petitioner, who is a Barrister and a practising Advocate, has been convicted by this Court in proceedings for contempt under Article 123 of the 1962‑Con stitution, and sentenced to simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, or, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for 15 days, by its judgment dated the 18th of January 1972. He now seeks a review of that judgment, and the main ground urged is that it is incorrectly recorded in the judgment that in his statement before the Court, the petitioner had withdrawn as false all the allegations made by him against the Chief Justice and the Judges of this Court, in his application to the President, which formed the subject‑matter of the contempt proceedings. The petitioner's typed statement, which is on record, was duly signed by him, and it is a futile attempt on his part to wriggle out of it. I his statement, whereby he expressed his repentance and unqualified apology, was considered by the Court as an extenuating circumstance for the award of the sentence to him for his action, which constituted grave contempt for having humiliated and scandalised this Court in full blast. The impression one gets is that he made that statement to express his sorrow and apology to soften the Court at that time for a lenient treatment, and having gained that object, he is now retracting from it in an endeavour to urge that the offensive application sent by him to the President contained allegations which were true and made in good faith, and that he is pro tected in that action by Article 128 (5) of the 1962‑Constitution. To say the least, the petitioner, by this somersault, is only adding insult to injury. His statement, referred to above, shows clearly that he withdrew all the allegations made by him in the application and expressed his sorrow for having written and despatched the same. The Court held that these allegations, which were false and malicious, were intended to malign and scandalise the learned Chief Justice and the Judges of this Court, and did not have any constitutional immunity. In fact, the President to whom the application was addressed, had himself initiated the contempt action against the petitioner. No valid ground is disclosed to reopen this case. The review petition stands dismissed.