1977 PLP 263 (SCMR)

"Advocate‑General v. Shabbir Ahmad P L D 1931 S C 610 and Yusuf Ali Ahan v. State P L D 1970 S C 150 ref. Rana Maqbool Ahmed Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant. Riaz Ahmad Assistant Advocate‑General (Punjab) for the State. Date of hearing t 26th January 1977. QAISAR KHAN, J.‑The facts of this case are given in detail in the judgment under appeal arid need not be recaptulated in detail. Briefly stated a petition under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed in the Lahore High Court on behalf of MW. Mumtaz Begum to the effect that her sister Mat. Rahat Parveen who was the wife of Muhammad Habeeb of Sheikhupura had been sold by her husband to Ch. Inayat of Sheikhupura who after committing rape on her in a hotel in Lahore had illegally confined her in the house of Muhammad Ramzan in Sheikhupura. The learned Chief Justice before whom the petition came up for hearing directed the Superintendent of Police, Sheikupura, to recover Mst. Rahat Parveen from the house of Muhammad Ramzan and produce her in Court on the 5th of October 1974. Pursuant to the 4d direction Muhammad Ibrahim A. S. I. Police, produced Mst. Rahat Parveen in Court on the said date. Muhammad Habeeb, husband of Mst. Rabat Parveen with her counsel also appeared in Court and alleged that the petition had been filed by a fictitious person as Mst. Mumtaz Begum was in England. It was further alleged that his wife had begin enticed by Shamin Iqbal, Head‑Constable, Police, and that on his complaint to the Superintendent of Police a Deputy Superintendent of Police had been deputed to take departmental action against Shamim Iqbal. One Irsahad Beg a step‑brother or Mst. Rahat Parveen also appeared in Court and sated that his sister Mst. Mumtaz Begum was in England. Muhammad Rant in alto filed an affidavit alleging that Mst. Parveen was kept by Sharnim Iqbal in the house of one Muhammad Haneef. The A. S. I. confirmed that departmental action was being taken against Shamim lqbal on the complaint of Muhammad Habeeb. Counsel for Muhammad Habeeb also brought to the notice of the Court that Shamim Iqbal had also come to Lahore and was present outside the Court. In view of the above the learned Chief Justice sent mss. Rahat Parveen to Darul Amail and deputed Malik Khizar Hayat, Member. Inspection Team of the High Court in ascertaining true facts. The Member, Inspection Team, submitted his report on the 22nd of November 1974 the crux of which was that Mat. Rahat Parveen had been enticed by Shamim Yqbal, Head‑Constable, who was keeping her in the house of Muhammad Haneef, that departmental inquiry against Shamim Iqbal in that connection on the complaint of Muhammad Habeeb was in progress and that whole drama of the petition hall been engineered by Shamim Iqbal far getting the woman produce before the D. S. P. According to the report Muhammad Ibrahim, A. S. I. had made a false statement for having recovered the woman from the house of Muhammad Ramzan. The learned Chief Justice further probed into the matter by examining Mst. Rahat Parveen, Muhammad Haneef and other and came to the conclusion that Mst. Mumtaz Begum was out of the country and that the whole drama had been engineered by Saamim Iqbal in collusion with fist. Rahat Parveen and Muhammad Haneef. He therefore dismissed the habeas corpus petition on the 5th of December 1974 and issued notices to Shamim Iqbal, Mst. Rahat Parveen and Muhammad Haneef to show cause why they should not be committed to prison for being guilty of contempt of Court. All the contemners in the first instance made every effort to justify their actions and produced evidence. But when the evidence was closed and the case was fixed for arguments the appellant tendered unqualified apology, dated the 25th of Marcia 1917 on the 5th of June

175. The Chief learned Justice explained to him that the submission of unqualified apology meant the admission of the allegations against him and he to his statement which was recorded thereafter reiterated that while tendering apology he admitted the truth of the charges against him and placed himself at the mercy of the Court. Learned counsel for the contemner thereafter argued that by tendering unqualified apology the contempt stood automatically purged. The learned Chief Justice however did not agree with this contention in the view of the authorities reported in Advocate‑General v. Shabbir Ahmad (P L D 1963 S C 610), Yusuf Ali Khan v. State (P L D 1970 S C 350) and convicted the present appellant for contempt. He however, taking into consideration the unqualified apology treated the appellant leniently and sentenced him to three months simple imprisonment, Shamim Iqbal has filed this appeal against his aforesaid conviction and sentence. Learned counsel for the appellant wanted to discuss the evidence in the case but when he was reminded that his client had admitted the allegations against him he gave up that effort. He however, prayed that in view of the unqualified apology further leniency should be shown to the appellant and that the sentence of imprisonment be reduced to the period already undergone by him. We however, see no sub6tance in this prayer of the learned counsel in view of the very serious nature of the contempt committed by the appellant; As a matter of fact he has already been shown enough leniency by the learned Chief Justice in the High Court. The appeal is therefore dismissed. The appellant should surrender to his bail 6.aud before the competent authority to undergo tae unexpired period of his sentence. Appeal dismissed.