P L D 1991 Karachi 233 (PLP)

The proceedings under the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 was drawn against the following persons: (1) The Editor, Daily Jasarat. (2) The Printer, Daily jasaral ;3) The Publisher, Daily Jasarat I (4) The Editor, Daily Star. (5) The Printer, Daily Star. (6) The Publisher, Daily Star.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? . . ' ` (7) The Editor, Daily Quomi Akhbar.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ., (8) The Printer, Daily Quomi Akhbar. (9) The Publisher, Daily Quomi Akhbar. In Daily Jasarat, Daily Star, Daily Quomi Akhbar and Daily Aghaz a news item was published alleging that terrorists were sent to India for training through the Registrar of the High Court of Sindh and a Professor of National College Karachi. Jasarat published the news with the following bold headline. One Mustafa Channa was named as Registrar. The other newspapers without verification printed this news. Consequently ‑Ghulam Mustafa Channa and Mansoor Hussain Khuhro applied for bail before arrest. In these proceedings it transpired that the news was completely false. Ghulam Mustafa Channa is a PA. of the Judge of the High Court and not a Registrar. Notice was therefore issued to the contemners for appearance on 21‑1‑1991. On that date Muhammad Jami, Sharafuddin Bughio and Ziauddin Kisat, Editor, Printer and Publisher of Daily Star respectively and its Reporter appeared and submitted unconditional apology. llyas Shakir, Editor and Publisher of Ooumi Akhbar also appeared and submitted unconditional apology. It was stated that the news was picked up from Daily JASARAT dated 9‑1‑1991 and was published without verification of facts. Muhammad Anwar Faruqui and Abdul Rahman Kazi, Editor and Printer of `AGHAZ' appeared and riled reply to the show‑cause notice which was duly signed by them and their advocates which reads as follows: "(1)?? That the news item subject‑matter of above notice has been published as per practice and procedure of media without any intention to hurt feelings of any one. (2)?????????????????????????????? That we have high respect and regards for Hon'ble High Court and ???????????????? judicial institutions. (3)??????????????????????? That by publishing the subject‑matter news item, we never intended to ???????????????? commit any disrepute to any one. . (4)???????????? That in any case we hereby tender unconditional and unqualified apology and leave overselves to the grace of this Hon'ble Court. It is prayed accordingly in the interest of justice: ??????????????? All these three newspapers published apology and also contracdicted the offending news. The Editor, Printer, Publisher of Daily Jasarat though served with notice issued to them remained absent. Fresh notice was issued to them for 23‑1‑1991 which was served on Mr. Arif who had received the earlier notice also. On 23‑1‑1991 Mahmood Ahmed Madni and Wasim Sabri, Editor and Printer respectively of Daily Jasarat were present and according to their advocate the Publisher of Daily Jasarat lives in Thatta and could not be contacted. An unconditional apology was riled and it was stated that the Editor was out of Karachi from 19‑1‑1991 to 22‑1‑1991 and he came to know of the show‑cause notice issued for 21‑1‑1991 on 22‑1‑1991. He has ordered for thorough inquiry and action shall be taken against the staff members found guilty of negligence. Undertaking was also given to publish apology on 24‑1‑1991. Again when the case was fixed on 27‑1‑1991 they filed the following statement: "It is respectfully submitted that the above‑named alleged contemners/applicants have published a news contradicting the relevant part of news item, subject‑matter of present proceedings. It is further submitted that the applicants have acted at their own at the earliest stage to affirm their respect and highest regard for judicial institutions and regretted the unintentional mistake and accordingly an apology has been published also on the front page of the newspaper at the most prominent space. A dbpy of the newspaper dated 24‑1‑1991 is attached herewith for the perushl and sympathetic consideration of this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice:" . No explanation was given for non‑appearance of publisher on 21‑1‑1991. Although no notice was issued to the Staff Reporter Jasarat he has appeared with the Editor, Publisher and Printer. He was apprised of the publication of the offending news and the contempt proceeding. He did not rile any statement but on query stated that he submits unconditional apology and has nothing to state further. From the unconditional apologies submitted by the contemners it seems clear that they admit that the news item published was completely false and has scandalized the Court in the eyes of public. It may however, be mentioned that according to section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, whoever by conduct, speech, writing or publication lowers the authority of a Court or scandalizes a judge in relation to his office commits contempt of Court. In order to find out whether an offending news or article amounts to contempt of Court, the entire A material has to be read. The words must be given their natural meaning which can be attributed and understood by a reasonable man of ordinary prudenco and intelligence. The principle for consideration of such offending material was laid do:‑xt by the Supreme Court in Sir Edward Snelson v. The Judges of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore PLD 1961 SC 237, at page 259 which reads as follows: "In considering libellous matter, certain principles are followed by the Court. One is that matter which is in its nature defamatory is presumed to be false until the contrary is shown to be the truth. Another principle is that in construing the matter alleged to be defamatory, no mitigation of its natural meaning. by construction is permissible. The words must be given their full, natural and ordinary meaning as a reasonable man of ordinary prudence would be likely to understand them. They must be taken as a whole in their context and it should be clearly borne in mind that the slander and the damage consists in the apprehension of the hearer or other person to whom the libel is communicated. The meaning in which the words were intended by the author to be understood is immaterial. Again, words may be on the surface innocent, but they may carry a secondary or special sense regard being had to the occasion, to the quality of persons to whom they are addressed, and to the circumstances affecting their meaning. In such a special sense they may have a disparaging, effect even though on a plain reading no defamation appears. Therefore, to avoid the imputation of disparagement, it is clear that not only must the words in their natural and ordinary meanuig be innocent, but there should be ‑ no secondary sense imported by circumstances which whould bring them within the mischief of defamation: Having understood the principle for scrutinising the offending material and in the face of the statements submitted there can be no two.opinions about the fact that by publication of the news item the High Court has been scandalized and its authority 4nd respect has been damaged and lowered. Thus contempt of Court has been committed. ' In this regard it deems pertinent to mention that the press does not enjoy any special privilege to scandalize or defame the Court or any individual citizen, The law relating to defamation, libel and slander for the press is the same which is applicable to every citizen in this country. A journalist in a contempt matter has no more privilege than an ordinary citizen. Reference can be made to State v, Mujecbur Rehman, PLD 1973 Lah

1. The Editor, Manager, Printer, Publisher and Staff Reporter are all equally liable for publication of offending material. Reference can be made to Saadat Khaili v. The State PLD 1962 SC 457 and State v. Abdul Rashid PLD 1962 Dacca

241. All of them have to accept fullest liability for publishing such offending material. Even those journalists, editors, publishers and reporters who lift and copy out any news or article from another publication arc equally responsible for quoting anal publishing.such offending material, Repetition of contempt is also contempt. It is the duty of the Editor, Printer, Publisher, Manager and Reporter of a.newspaper.that where any news or article is to be published which in any manner scandalizes or lowers the authority of the; Court or a Judge in discharge of his duties they must first take proper measures to ascertain its correctness. Any dereliction of duty in this respect is bound t bring such persons within the clutches of law. Press has the freedom to publish but not the privilege to scandalize or defame anybody. The next question is whether the apologies submitted by the contemner should be accepted. It has been the practice of the Court that whenever unconditional apology at the earliest has been submitted the same has bees accepted. If the contemner at the earliest expresses regrets, offers apology any shows repentance the Courts are inclined to accept it. But if the offending act i sought to be justified and additionally or alternatively an apology is offered, the same may not be accepted. Doctrine of forgiveness was enunciated in A.K.M.A Awal v. The State PLD 1964 SC 502 where following observation was made: "As for the doctrine that an offence is to be forgiven if the offender expresses regret, truly repents his action, and makes a firm purpose o: amendment, that is one which, if I may say so, the vast majority of the citizens of Pakistan would accept without question. There are texts in the Scriptures of Islam to the effect that to him who repents after hi; transgression and makes amends, mercy will be shown. It may be that a mundane authority‑ might take a different view, having experience of the nature of human beings, but I do not. find it possible to imagine that members of the East Pakistan Civil Services or Sub‑Divisional Officers are so much accustomed to committing such offences and thereafter presenting insincere expressions of repentance and intended reformation, that here mercy should properly be withheld." Applying these tests to the facts of the present case I rind that the Editor, Printer and Publisher of Daily Jasarat were served with notices on 20‑1‑1991 for appearance on 21‑1‑1991 but they did not appear. Notice was again issued to them for 23‑1‑1991 when editor and printer appeared and filed their apology. Later they produced copy of newspaper dated 24‑1‑19`)1 containing the apology and contradiction. In the statement filed on 27‑1‑1991 it was stated that they have acted at their own‑at the earliest stage to affirm their respect and highest regard for judicial institution and accordingly an apology was published in the newspaper. In fact the apology was published in the newspaper after the service of the notice twice and their conduct in not appearing on 21‑1‑1991 was most improper particularly as service of first notice has not been denied. The Editor has endeavoured to offer explanation for his personal absence but no excuse can be made by the publisher and printer. The notice was served on 20‑1‑1991 and the publisher or any responsible person including the printer could have appeared on 21‑1‑1991 but no one bothered to attend the Court. This conduct cannot be taken lightly. The alleged absence of the Editor from 19‑1‑1991 to 22‑1‑1991 does not absolve him from the responsibility of publishing the offending news. They published the offending news without any verification and considering the respectability and circulation Jasarat commands, the evening newspapers copied it out in their publications with closed eyes. In these circumstances I am not inclined to discharge the notice for publishing the offending news. The Editor, Printer and Publisher of Aghaz first filed a statement on 21‑1‑1991 partly justifying their conduct and thereafter in the closing part apology was offered (reproduced above). In these circumstances I am not inclined to accept their apology and discharge the notice. As held ‑in Muhammad Samiullah Khan v. State PLD 1973 SC 237 in contempt proceeding reprimand is a recognized mode of punishment. Therefore taking a lenient and generous view of the entire situation the Editor, Printer, Publisher and Reporter of JASARAT who have expressed their repentance twice and the Editor, Printer and Publisher of AGHAZ are reprimanded for the publications of a scandalous and false news in a reckless and irresponsible manner without acting with due care and caution. They are warned to act in future in a responsible and disciplined manner keeping the highest traditions of journalism. The Editor, Printer and Publisher had submitted their apology immediately on service of notice and had published apology in a proper manner. Their apology is accepted and notice is discharged. The Editor, Printer and Publisher of Qaumi Akhbar had also submitted unconditional apology at the earliest. Their apology is accepted and notice is discharged. The Editors, Publishers and Printers of JASARAT, AGHAZ and QUOMI AKHBAR are directed to publish their apology entirely on the front page at a prominent place in bold print without carrying any part of it to other pages in their issue of Thursday the 14th March, 1991. The apology shall be in the same form, manner and wording as published by STAR on 22‑1‑1991. On publication of such apology copy of the newspaper shall be supplied to the Registrar of the High Court. M.BA./G‑252/K??????????????????? Order accordingly.