P L D 1952 Sind 18 (PLP)

TYABJI, C. J.‑The two respondents, Zia‑ud‑Din Ahmad Suleri and Ijaz Ahmad Abdul Ghani, are before us in response to notices served upon them on the 29th September 1951 to show cause why they should not be punished under section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act XII of 1926, in respect of two publications in the Evening Times, one on the 26th September and the other on the 27th September. Respondent Suleri is the editor and respondent Ijaz Ahmad the printer and publisher of the Evening Times. The first of these publications appeared on the front page of the morning edition of the Evening Times on the 26th Sep tember under a banner heading " 3 Chief Court Judges in Hot Waters " printed across two, columns in very big and heavy type. Below this heading, there was another headline in heavy print " Preliminary Enquiry against justice Agha." Below this, there was a third headline in large letters, " Three of the five judges of the Sind Chief Court including the Chief judge are in hot waters, official sources confirmed it to Evening Times yesterday." Then there followed the following : "Preliminary inquiry against one of the three judges, Mr. Justice Hassan Ali Agha, has already been completed. The papers are now pending before the Chief Justice of the Federal Court for a final decision whether or not to order a public inquiry against Mr. Justice Agha, who is presently on forced leave. The preliminary inquiry against Mr. Justice Agha was conducted by the Law Minister, Pirzada Abdus Sattar and Chief Judge Tyabji. The Chief Judge, Mr. Justice Hatim Badruddin Tayabji, due to retire on 9th December 1951 and a puisne judge, Mr. Justice Wali Muhammad B. Vellani are now involved in a petition filed by two local advocates. The petition addressed to the Governor‑General of Pakistan with copy to the Prime Minister, Mr. Liaqat Ali Khan, lists as many as nine charges against Mr. Tayabji and 12 against Mr. Justice Vellani. The charges range from favouritism and nepotism to contravention of procedure rules. The petitioners allege that the circumstances and the manner in which the cases detailed (in the petition) have been disposed of, leads one to no other conclusion but that they have been dealt " with in utter disregard of their judicial functions ; in fact these instances have created a very bad impression on the public and the members of the Bar ; it has created an impression that judicial administration has been utilised for ulterior axed personal motives. The petition which has been forwarded to the Prime Minister is under consideration by the Cabinet Secretariat." The second publication also appeared in the morning edi tion of the same paper on the next day, the 27th September, again under a banner headline in big heavy type on the front page extending across two columns " Transfer case from Chief Court." Below this there was another headline " An Advocate's Prayer," and below that yet another heading in large type : " Mr. Justice Vellani has now before him an appli cation under section 25 of C. P. C., the first of its kind ever to be moved in Pakistan, praying for the transfer of a case to " any other High Court of Pakistan." Then follows the following which was printed for the most part on the front page, the last two paragraphs appearing on the last page : "The applicant Syed Israr Hussain. himself a practising advocate at Karachi, without in any way reflecting upon the integrity and honesty of this Hon'ble Court submitted that the Hon'ble Court has on several occasions expressed himself in such a manner that it has given him an apprehension that the matter will be decided against him. The applicant has prayed that considering the threats of Qamar‑ud‑Din (defendant) and the well known dictum that justice should not only be done but must also appear to be done, the Court may report to the Provincial Government for transfer of this matter to some other High Court. The applications mentions that the suit filed by the plain tiff was for injunction restraining the defendants, their servants or agents from carrying out any construction on the premises occupied by me.' As a Mohajir, the question invol ved in the suit is almost a question of life and death for me. It mentions that during the course of these proceedings, ` from the beginning the attitude and behaviour of this Hon'ble Court as visible to me was that the Hon'ble Court has not permitted me either to explain my aspect of the case, or to even examine the sketch and the inspection report of the lower Court as on record. The applicant said : I am practising as an advocate. I have put in a practice of about 25 years. Within my informa tion and knowledge of law, there is no provision of law or Court rule which grants a right or liberty to a judge to lose temper and grow hot, make faces and burst into outbursts of anger or to brow‑beat one party. In this matter, the learned judge got angry for reasons better known to him and tried to brow‑beat me and my advocate, Mr. Hafiz. He spoke loud and refused to either understand my aspect of the case, or even to examine the sketch and the inspection report of the lower Court, on record. He stopped and ordered plaintiff to sit down. When my advocate attempted to put my case, the Hon'ble Court said that it being only the question of passage, the parties should settle it.' It also stated that ' the defendant's advocate having once filed a counter‑affidavit, had no right under rule 75 of the Chief Court Rules to file a second affidavit, but on the suggestion of the Hon'ble Court, the defendants filed another affidavit, con sequently the defendants filed another affidavit, which was ac cepted by the Hon'ble Court without entertaining any applica tion from the defendants. Besides, the Hon'ble Court did not allow the plaintiff to file a rejoinder to the defendants second affidavit. The applicant had also stated that while compromise talks were going on, defendant No. 1 got wild and threatened me saying that the matter was gone and that now unless I agreed on taking merely passage, he would have me thrown on the street as the Hon'ble judge had been the legal adviser of defendants 2 to 8 Abdullah Bhai Muhammad Ali's father Mr. Muhammad Ali, and that they would arrange everything here. Further the applicant mentioned that on September 9, on taking up the case, and seeing the affidavits of the plaintiff, the Hon'ble Court burst into anger and spoke at the top of his voice in an obviously discourteous manner thereby humiliating and lowering my advocate, Mr. A. Aziz in the eyes of his clients and public sitting there." When the matter came up for hearing before us on the 20th October, each of the two respondents filed an affidavit in which it was stated : " I tender sincere unconditional and unqualified apology in the matter. I assure the Hon'ble Court that I never intended and had no intention whatsoever to bring the Hon'ble Court or any Hon'ble judge thereof into disrepute or contempt." The learned Advocate‑General for the Crown emphasised be fore us the very grave nature of the contempt which the publication of each of the two publication constituted. This is indeed only too obvious. It was alleged that enquiries were pending against three of five judges of this Court. who had been charged with numerous acts of favouritism, contravention of the rules of procedure, who had shown an utter disregard of their judicial duties and created an impression that judicial ad ministration was being utilised for ulterior and personal motives. In the second publication it was suggested that one of the Judges of this Court had not given a proper hearing to one of the parties in a case because the judge had been the legal adviser of the father of some of the other parties. The language used was most offensive and insulting to the judge. Mr. Brohi pointed out that the apologies made by the two respondents had been made at a very late stage and had certainly not been made at the earliest possible moment. He pointed out that having regard to the nature of the matter Established and the manner in which it was published, it was impossible to accept the contention of the respondents that they had no intention to bring the Court into contempt. The learned Advocate‑General has relied in this connection on the fact that in June last the respondents had to be warned by the Special Tribunal now sitting at Hyderabad, and this fact was admitted by respondent Suleri. Messrs. Wahid‑ud‑Din and Sharif‑ud‑Din, the learned advocates who appeared for the respondents, made no attempt to dispute the fact that the publication did amount to a contempt of this Court. They pressed us, however, to accept the apologies tendered by the two respondents and to discharge the notices against them without ordering any punishment under section

2. The apologies made in this case were clearly not made at the earliest opportunity. They were only made when this matter came up for hearing on the 20th October. I also find it impossible to say that the attitude of the respondents in this case was such as to indicate any genuine remorse or contrition on their part for the offences committed by them. The plea put forward by them that they did not intend to bring this Court into disrepute or contempt was clearly not honest or truthful. In answer to question from the Court, Mr. Suleri even attempted to make out that he was not aware of the matters published in the two editions of his paper on the 26th and the 27th September until after the publication had been made. It is quite impossible to accept these state ments. Admittedly Mr. Suleri was in Karachi and attended to this work on the dates in question. But quite apart from these facts, we cannot but regard the contempts committed in these cases otherwise than of the gravest, vilest and the most wicked character. The effect of these publications must necessarily have been such as completely to shake the con fidence of the public in the integrity of this Court, as Crump, J, pointed out in Emperor v. Marmaduke Pickthall (A I R 1923 Bom. 242), an apology cannot overtake and counteract the mischief done by such publications. The contempts committed in this case were clearly of a far graver character than those committed in cases like Crown v. Sayyed Habib, (6 Lah. 528), where the offender was sentenced to one month's imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in the case of Emperor v. Marmaduke Pickthall, (A I R 1923 Born. 242) where a fine of Rs. 5,000 was imposed. In those cases, the e allegations made were to the effect that the Judges had proved themselves politically subservient, but no dishonesty of a personal character, and no personal motives has been attributed to the judges. In this case three of the Judges of this Court were vilified and characterised as utterly dishonest men, who instead of doing their judicial work with absolute impartiality had in numerous instances been guilty of the grossest partiality. The fact that so much prominence was given to these publications by the respondents makes it clear that they visualised the sensation that the publications would necessarily create and fully anticipated the effects thereof. In the Daily Mirror Case (cf. Tekchand's Law of Contempt, 2nd Edition, p. 286), the editor of the paper was‑sentenced to three months' imprisonment because, as Lord Chief Justice Goddard pointed out, "It was a matter of policy, pandering to sensationalism for the purpose of increasing circulation" which had led to the contempt being committed. The reason given in this case for not being satisfied with the unqualified apology which had been tendered and for inflicting a substantial sentence of imprisonment applies with equal force in the present case. For these reasons, I would convict each of the two respon dents before us of contempt under section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act. I would sentence respondent Z. A. Suleri to one month's simple imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 1,000, or in default of payment to one month's further simple imprison ment. I would sentence respondent Ijaz Ahmed Abdul Ghani to 15 days' simple imprisonment, and a fine of Rs. 500, or in default of payment, to one month's further simple imprison ment. CONSTANTINE, J.‑These are two cases of Contempt of Court in respect of two articles appearing, the first on the 26th and the second on the 27th, prominently on the first page of successive morning editions of the Evening Times. Accused Suleri is the editor and accused Ijaz Ahmad is the publisher. It is common ground that both articles scandalised Judges of this Court, the articles were calculated to bring this Court into contempt and interfere with the administration of justice. The second article was also an improper' report of a pending case. Notice was issued to the two accused on the 28th Sep tember. Apologies unconditional in terms were handed in when the cases came on for hearing on the 20th October. I do not consider that the two accused are speaking the truth in saying that they did not realise that they could apologise at an earlier date. No apology was printed by the paper before the hearing, though an envelope containing an issue of a date after the 21st was sent to me containing a paper : Whether this contained an apology or not I did not look to see, for it is improper to send a copy of a paper even with a covering letter (and I saw no such letter) to a Judge in a criminal case. I do not accept the editor's word that he did not read the articles before publication : for here we have two successive articles. He states that he is responsible only for editorial matter and not for news items, but he admitted‑that he had to apologise for contempt of another Tribunal in June of this year. I do not accept his word that he informed the news editor on the 25th that it was wrong to publish the article white appeared on the 26th, otherwise the article of the 27th could not have appeared. Mr. Shariff‑ud‑din for the publisher states he was engaged only at the last moment. The publisher has thus taken the matter lightly, and I do not accept his apology. The prominent position of the articles and the prominent comment. "Three Judges in hot water" show that the item was published not merely as an item of news, but in order to create sensation, for purposes of profit. I therefore agree with the sentences proposed by My Lord the Chief Judge on the both accused in these two cases. W. B. L. VELLANI.‑I concur. MUHAMMAD BACHAL.‑I agree. MUHAMMAD BUX.‑I agree. K. M. A. Petition accepted.