P L D 1972 Lahore 485 (PLP)

These proceedings were ill‑advised and were not initiated in the interest of toe dignity of the Court for which sole purpose, the exceptional power of contempt has been conferred on the Courts of law. Malik Muhammad Ahsan for Petitioner. Aslam Riaz Hussain for A.A.G. for the State. This is an application under section 561‑A of the Criminal Procedure Code for the quashment of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner for contempt of the Court of Mr. Masood Ahmad Ansari, Magistrate First Class, Lahore.

2. The petitioner is the manager of Spencer & Co., Lahore, and is a complainant in a case registered against Munawar Beg and Muhammad Ishaq, ex‑employees of the Spencer & Co., under section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Magistrate had issued non‑bailable warrants for securing the petitioner's presence in Court on 25th of September 1968. The case of the petitioner was that he was never served before for any date and the learned Magistrate had without taking into consideration the facts of the case issued non‑bailable warrants against him. The petitioner after having come to know of the issuance of non‑bailable warrants against him, applied to the learned Sessions Judge for bail which was granted.

3. On 15th of October 1968, the petitioner appeared before the learned Magistrate and filed a written application for transfer of the case from his Court. The learned Magistrate stayed proceedings. He was of the opinion that the contents of the application were likely to come within the purview of the Contempt of Courts Act but in view of the fact that the petitioner had decided to move the High Court for transfer of the case, he deferred the consideration of the contempt matter.

4. The learned Magistrate later changed his mind on the same day for reasons which are not apparent on the record and ordered, the issue of notice to the petitioner in the application filed before him to proceed against the petitioner for contempt. The petitioner was asked by the learned Magistrate to accept a copy of the petition there and then and to appear on 22nd of October 1968, to file a reply to the application. On 22nd of October 1968, the movers of the application were not present and it is the contention of the 4 petitioner that he requested the learned Magistrate to dismiss the application for non‑prosecution but this request was rejected. I had called for a report from the learned Magistrate who has denied that a request was ever made to him in that behalf although the petitioner still maintains that such a request was made. In my opinion, the learned Magistrate was not bound to dismiss the petition in the absence of the applicants. An application for contempt is not strictly a proceeding bet ween the parties. The real party to such proceedings is the A Court itself and it can pursue the matter, in spite of the absence of an applicant, if there are reasons to continue the contempt proceedings.

5. It is argued that no contempt is made out from the contents of the application which the petitioner moved before the learned Magistrate intimating to him his intention to file an application for the transfer of the case in the High Court. The petitioner had recapitulated certain incidents which had happened in Court and had said that on the basis of false statements made by the accused before the Court, non‑bailable warrants had been issued against him. It is further submitted that the application filed by the accused on the basis of which notice was issued for contempt against the petitioner, does not at all refer to any fact which according to the applicants constituted contempt. There is no averment as to which particular portion of the application filed by the petitioner on 15th October 1960, amounted to contempt.

6. The learned Magistrate, in my view, had very wisely deferred the consideration of the matter of contempt pending the decision of the High Court with regard to the transfer of the main case. It is, however, not clear what induced the learned Magistrate to change his mind later on. A copy of the application by which contempt proceedings were initiated is on this record as Annexure `A'. I find that except a general allegation that the complainant "had flouted the honour of the learned Court", there is not any precise averment showing as to how a case of contempt could be made out against the petitioner.

7. The application filed by the petitioner which has been made the basis for contempt proceedings was made solemnly during the proceedings of a case. A copy of this is on the file) .of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 5699 of 1968, and I find that there is nothing which could constitute contempt of the Court of the learned Magistrate. It was a narration of facts as to what had B happened in Court on that day. A litigant should have the opportunity to place full facts before the Court and the Court should not be so touchy as to react in a manner which may strike fear in the heart of a litigant and thus deter him from freely making submissions to the Court. Such conduct may result In hampering the course of justice.

8. It is deplorable that these contempt proceedings were initiated on an application which did not show as to bow contempt had been committed. It is true, that a Court is the sole Judge of its own sensitivity with regard to matters of contempt, but that sensitivity is to be expressed to protect the dignity of the Court and not to provide an opportunity to litigants to avenge personal grievances. The jurisdiction for punishing a contemner is a peculiar one where the Court combines in itself the role of a prosecutor and a Judge. The sole object of this jurisdiction is to enable the Courts of law to vindicate their, honour and to keep the fountain of justice free from obstruction C or pollution. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that the Court proceeding in the matter should apply its own mind to the facts of the case and satisfy itself that a prima facie case for contempt has been made out‑-(See In re: Subrahmanyan (A I R 1943 Lah. 329) ).

9. The contemner is also to be told as to what is the precise charge against him so that he is in a position to explain the matter‑(See Saadat Khialy v. State (P L D 1962 S C 457).

10. In the case before me the application filed against the petitioner did not disclose any fact on which the pro ceedings for contempt were founded. The learned Magistrate was very prompt in directing the issue of notice, but no written notice constituting the allegations against the petitioner was served on him. He was given a copy of the application filed: against him and he signed on the file in token of the receipt of that copy. The question arises as to what was it that the petitioner was called upon to explain. No facts which consti tuted contempt were communicated to him, and the copy of the application just contained a bare allegation that he had committed contempt.

11. These proceedings, in my view, were ill‑advised and' were not initiated in the interest of the dignity of the Court for which sole purpose, the exceptional powers of contempt have been conferred on the Courts of law. 1, therefore, quash the proceed ings of contempt initiated by the learned Magistrate by his order dated 15th of October 1969. The petitioner shall stand discharged. Proceedings quashed.