1987 PLP 1949 (MLD)

(4) The present apology is a categorical acknowledgment of atonement, an unambiguous expression of regret and a patent manifestation of repentance on behalf of the answering respondent. (5) The answering respondent is a young and qualified doctor sitting at the threshold of his professional career. Any setback at this stage is going to ruin his entire future. Moreover, the respondent intends to pursue higher education abroad in the near future in a bid to improve his academic qualifications and bolster his professional standing. Any adverse order passed by this Hon'ble Court at this juncture is likely to shatter the respondent's prospects in this respect. (6) The answering respondent is extremely sorry, regretful, remorseful and full of repentance and begs for extreme indulgence of this Hon'ble Court." It was prayed "that the answering respondent may graciously be pardoned and the show-cause notice issued against him may kindly be discharged." The detenu filed Crl.Org. No.25-W/86 on 18-5-1986 saying that the statement of the respondent that he intended to go abroad to take MRCP Examinations was wrong nor any application for ex-Pakistan leave nor for issuance of NCC nor for the grant of Visa, was placed on the record. This was directed to be put up alongwith the Crl.Org. vide order dated 19-5-1986. Both these matters are intended to be disposed of by this order.

2. The learned Assistant Advocate General prosecuting the petition has submitted that there is no doubt whatsoever that the report submitted by the respondent was wrong and not correct. It stands established from the report of the Medical Board which shows that the detenu had suffered nine fading contusion marks which were of duration from 7 to 9 days. The report is dated 30-4-1986. Surely these injuries were there when the report was submitted by the respondent on 27-4-1986. In these circumstances, the charge stands established. However, the unconditional apology tendered by the respondent on 13-5-1986 and the fact that he was young and it was his first appointment and that he had made a report, for which he should have known better, was yet such that it does not show criminal intent though it may not be without blemish. However, the unconditional and unqualified apology tendered on 13-5-1986 may be considered in the light of the principles laid down by the learned Supreme Court of Pakistan in P L D 1970 S C 350.

3. The gentleman who had suffered the torture and the injuries, states that the respondent submitted a false report which is undisputable in the circumstances and he is, therefore, liable to suffer the consequences of his act to mislead the Court.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the answering respondent has read out the unconditional and unqualified apology tendered by the respondent on 13-5-1986 with emphasis. He has asked for forgiveness for his client from the person who has suffered the injuries on his personal claim as well of being a senior colleague of his. But without effect. He has also submitted that the answering respondent was issued a show-cause notice vide order dated 3-5-1986 and since his being aware thereof and filing of the reply--meaning thereof in the early part of May, 1986, the answering respondent has undergone the torture of apprehension of total ruination of a respectable, descent career which otherwise the answering respondent with his mind, education could legitimately expect and hope for and, therefore, has suffered enough.

5. I have heard the learned A . A .-G. , the gentleman who had suffered the injuries and about whom the report was called for and the learned counsel for the answering respondent. There is no doubt whatsoever that the report submitted by the answering respondent on 27-4-1986 was wrong and would be known to be wrong because it was being said that the person reporting was unable to find any injury when no less than nine were found by three Senior Doctors constituting the Board three days later and saying that the duration of the injuries was 7 to 9 days. The reason why did he submit a false report is also not far to be answered as stated by the learned counsel for the answering respondent. The latter had qualified as doctor in December, 1981. He got this job of Medical Officer on 4-4-1985 after waiting for four years. The appointment was the first and it was submitted by the learned counsel that it was the first report he was to make on 27-4-1986. Desire to be put on the right side of the administration employing him or the youth or inexperience would hardly justify making a false report in the judicial proceedings. The respondent should have known better and shown greater learning of his profession and of a gentleman, that f is to say, professional integrity. The respondent has submitted an unconditional and unqualified apology soon after the proceedings had been initiated in the first opportunity. The apology has been quoted above. It has been read with emphasis by the learned counsel for the respondent and the respondent had demonstrated his sincere acceptance of what has been read out. The principles laid down for consideration of apology originally in P L D 1964 S C 562 as approved in the judgment quoted by the learned Assistant Advocate-General i.e. P L D 1970 SC 350 are as follows:- "(i) As to whether the contemner appreciated that his act was within the mischief of contempt; (ii) Whether he regretted it; (iii) Whether his regret was sincere; (iv) Whether it was accompanied with expression of the resolution never to repeat again; and (v) Whether he made humble submission to the authority of the Court. " This case was heard yesterday and was left over for today. The submissions made by his learned counsel alongwith invoking his personal seniority in the profession with the person injured and seeking an apology and the demonstration of the respondent throughout the proceedings seen in conjuction with the apology tendered on 13-5-1986, leave no doubt that the respondent would have learnt the lesson of his life. If he is to do anything of the kind again, it would only show that either he has lost his head or perversion has set in'. There is no reason to believe that either eventuality is likely in view of the total submissions of the respondent added with his counsel's. I am satisfied that the apology deserves acceptance. It is so accepted and the notice issued is recalled. As regards the application filed by the detenu in response to the application of the respondent that the case be heard earlier as has to go abroad for his MRCP, that application has not yet been admitted. In the circumstances, no useful purpose would be served when the main case has already been disposed of. The two matters are, accordingly, disposed of . M . Y . H . /S-88/ L Contempt notice discharged.