1969 PLP 416 (SCMR)

Date of hearing : 20th October 1958. AMIRUDDIN AHMAD, J.‑This is an appeal by special leave of this Court by the Editor, Printer and Publisher of an Urdu weekly, named Nawa‑i‑Watan, from the judgment of the High Court of West Pakistan at Lahore convicting him for contempt of Court and sentencing him to two n1011ths' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.

500. An article under the caption `The eminent literary institu tion, Al‑hamra Arts council mortgaged to Shama Moimma for only rupees two thousand' which appeared in the weekly Nawa‑i‑Watan, Lahore, in its issue Nos. 19 and 20, dated the 16th to 31st May 1957, is as under:‑ "'The raspectables of the city and self‑respecting boycotted the functions arranged by Shama Overseas Limited under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice S. A. Rahman. The Chief Justice, West Pakistan High Court, in spite of protest distributed the prizes of the infamous Indo‑Pak Shama Moimmas. Demand for enquiring for the wrongful use of Al‑hamra to promote the business of Shama Moimmas. But the number of the persons attending these functions was not more than 200 or 225, consisting of the entire stage of the Shama Overseas Limited including peons, agents and honourable hawkers of the monthly Shama, Delhi and Lahore, half a dozen hired photographers, the staff of Shahnoor Studios consisting of about 25 persons, who prepare the publicity film of the function, three old sponges (lit, spoons) of Alhaj Hafiz Muhammad Yusaf Delhvi, Film Director Luqman, Hazrat Shaukat Thanvi, Hazrat Ishrat Rehmani of Radio Pakistan Lahore, Film‑Actress Yasmin, Film‑Actress Nasrin and her illustrious husband Nawab Sahib, Film‑Actor Ala ud‑Din and besides them some Magistrates of the District Courts, Lahore, Exh. P. All of whom Chaudhri Niaz Ali, Magistrate 1st Class, Lahore, is particularly worthy of mention for the reason that the defamation case tiled by Alhaj Hafiz Muhammad Yusaf Delhvi, Chairman, Shama Overseas Limited, Mr. Muhammad Sharif Yad Malik, Editor of the weekly `Sehar' is pending in his Court. It is worth mentioning at this place that on the very next day of this function viz. on the 6th May, when the parties to the above complaint appeared in the Court, the learned Magistrate very kindly and courteously enquired of Yad Malik accused why he did not attend previous days' function. Mr. Yad Malik replied that Mr. Hafiz had not invited him. Before the hearing of the case, our special correspon dence also was among the persons who heard this conversation." The Magistrate. Chaudhri Niaz Ali, against whom the article was pointedly directed who was in seisin of the case of Muhammad Yousuf Dellivi v. Muhammad Sharif alias Yad Malik under section 5100 of the Pakistan Penal Code at the time, reported the matter to the High Court and requested action under section 2(i) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926. The High Court after considering the article in question and the affidavits filed in the case and rejecting the half‑hearted apology of the appellant, as it was coupled with pleas of justification, held that the appellant was clearly in contempt and convicted and sentenced him as stated above. In support of this appeal it was urged that the article should be read as a whole; that the appellant had not inten tion to scandalise the Magistrate and that it did not in any way interfere with the course of justice. We are unable to accept this argument as sound. On reading the article we find that the appellant attacked the functions arranged by Shama Overseas Limi ted, which were presided over by the Chief Justice of the West Pakistan High Court, which the paper dis‑approved, and stated that respectable people of the city and self‑respecting people had boy cotted it, and that it was attended by peons, agents, hawkers, hired photographers, film Directors, film Actresses etc. He pointedly drew the attention of the readers to the fact that Chaudhri Niaz Ali, who was trying the case in which the Chairman of Shama Overseas Limited was the complainant, attended the function and on the following day when the, accused appeared, he asked him why he did not attend the previous day's function. The sugges tion in the paper was that the Magistrate was susceptible to influence and had aligned himself with one of the parties in a case pending before him, which is calculated to undermine the confi dence of the public in the impartiality of the Magistrate and thus in terferes with the course of justice. The intention of the appellant is irrelevant. The trend of the writing is to be looked into which clearly constitutes Contempt of Court, which must be purged. We agree with the High Court that it is a serious Contempt of Court, and dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed.