P L D 1955 Sind 1 (PLP)

CONSTANTINE, C.J.‑Mr. Israr Hussain was convicted under section 3 of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentenced to one month's simple imprisonment by,,a bench of all the then five judges of this Court. His appeal to the Federal Court has been dismissed. He has now tendered an apology by affidavit and has appeared before this Court and has been represented by Mr. I. I. Chundrigar. The material words of the affidavit are :‑ "(2) That I sincerely tender a full unreserved and un qualified apology to this Hon'ble Court for contempt of Court in this case. (3) That I take this opportunity to purge the said contempt by sincerely offering this apology to this Hon'ble Court. (4) That I throw myself entirely at the mercy of the Court. (5) That I assure this Hon'ble Court that in future I wil: be careful and will not give any occasion for further proceedings". He also pleads that he has already suffered three, days imprisonment before the orders of the Federal Court were received. The judgment of the Chief Justice of Pakistan with whom Mr. Justice Akram and Mr. Justice Muhammad Sharif ex pressed agreement, stated that this was one of the worst contempts of a superior Court ever committed by a party Mr. Justice Shahabuddin considered that the affidavit filed by the appellant clearly constituted a contempt. . Mr. Justice Cornelius considered that one passage clearly scandalised the Court. As regards the punishment, the learned Chief Justice stated that he was unable to discover in the judgment of the Chief Court anything which might tend to show that in assessing the quantum of punishment the learned judges had misdirected themselves and later he said : "I fully appreciate the anxiety of the learned judges to take a serious view of the appellant's conduct which they could have overlooked only at the risk of a grave danger to the administration of justice within their jurisdiction. Mr. Justice Shahabuddin stated that the sentence was not unduly severe, 'While Mr. Justice Cornelius stated that it was impossible for him to say that even in relation to the minimised offence as found by him, the sentence of one month's simple imprisonment was materially disproportionate to his deserts. As regards apology, the learned Chief Justice stated: "an apology after every conceivable defence has been taken, adjudicated upon and repelled and an appeal to this Court has failed, can hardly be considered to be genuine or received with sympathy". Mr. Justice Shahabuddin did not deal with the matter of apology, while Mr. Justice Cornelius stated "the apology comes too late to be effective. This Court has the power to remit punishment on being satisfied by an apology. An apology consists of acknowledge ment of commission of contempt and an expression of regret for such commission. The Court's satisfaction will depend upon the adequacy of the terms of an apology, its sincerity, and the gravity of the contempt. In the present case we doubt the sincerity of the apology : We think it inspired by regret, not at having committed contempt, but at the resultant impending imprisonment. Secondly we think the contempt was so grave that apology is not sufficient to purge the contempt. We are fortified in this view by the judgment of the Federal Court. We therefore order that the opponent should serve out the balance of his sentence. A. H. Application rejected.