1985 P Cr (PLP)

A publication has been made in a monthly magazine 'Urdu Digest' of March, 1983 wherein it has been stated that Mr. Sharif Uddin Pirzada was being subjected to severe criticism that he was Attorney‑General, Law Minister, and also allowed to do private practice and take advantage of his position he had beer' appearing in inferior and superior Courts where he wins his cases and makes lacs of Rupees. The applicant made the present application for punishment of the three respondents, Altaf Hussain Qureshi, Dr. Ijaz Hassan Qureshi, and Zafarullah Khan, allegedly responsible for printing and publication of the said monthly Paper. This application was filed on 25‑5‑1983 and it was placed before me on 29‑5‑1983. I dictated an order of admission but before signing the same, I noticed that at the bottom of the publication, that the said publication appeared in monthly part of March, 1983 viz. about three months before the date of filing of this application. I became anxious that the Courts have not looked upon belated applications for contempt of Court with favour and, therefore, on 31‑5‑1983 I issued a notice for re‑hearing the applicant. The applicant has appeared today and stated that he does not want to state anything and his sole intention was to bring this matter of contempt to the notice of the Court so that if the Court holds it so, proper action against them would be taken. The learned Advocate‑General has appeared as a Court Officer and he has stated that belated action for contempt has rarely found favour with the Court. He has not supported the application. First of all the publication appears to be designed to malign Mr. Sharif Uddin Pirzada rather than degrade the Courts. This argument gets fortified when it is considered in the context that Courts of this country have always decided the cases impartially without fear or favour. In fact the Judges are bound by their oath. Regardless of the status of counsel or party a Judge has to do justice and there is hardly any reason to think that the Judges will take a view in a case from the angle of the party or Advocate appearing. Somewhat parallel situation had arisen in the case of Hamid Sarfraz v. Federation of Pakistan. This case was decided by the Supreme Court on 4‑10‑1979 and judgment was delivered by six Hon'ble Judges of that Court, and is reported in P L D 1979 S C

99. In that case Mr. Mahmood Ali Qasuri had objected to Mr. Sharif Uddin Pirzada appearing in a case. It was insinuated that the Judges of the Supreme Court would not be able to do justice in the matter as they would feel beholden to Mr. Sharif Uddin Pirzada for their appointment and other matters. At page 995 to the report the Supreme Court made its observations on the point which are as follows:‑ "We are all bound by our oath of office to do Justice without fear or favour, and it matters little whether the person appearing before us combines in himself the offices of the Attorney‑General and the Law Minister or, indeed, any other offices of the realm. We strongly deprecate the insinuation made by Mr Mahmud Ali Qasuri, and would like to express the hope that he made these submissions without fully realising their mischievous implications." In that case Supreme Court did not take action for contempt. No doubt the mischievous implication in this case stands parallel to the implication of the statement in the case of Hamid Sarfraz. It would appear that the publication is in a bad taste. But the next question that has engaged my attention is that of delay. Whenever an expression of protest is made after a lapse of time some misgivings always arise. It may appear that the protest is motivated or has been made for reason other than upholding the prestige of the Court. On the other hand, proceedings of contempt being proceedings of a criminal nature, delay is always very relevant Admittedly this application is delayed by at least three months from the publication. The question the arises is whether it is desirable to take proceedings now. The Advocate‑General has stated that taking proceedings at this stage will serve no useful purpose. I have also been reminded of the case of Mu8htaq Hussain v. An Editor of daily 'Dawn' which was decided by J. Raymond, a Judge of West Pakistan High Court. This case is reported in P L D 1964 Kar.

367. The learned Judge besides, observing that the action to commit for contempt is not to be used lightly, has also adverted to the aspect of delay in taking action in this case the application for punishing the contemner had been filed quite early after the publication, but the Advocate filing the application made an inordinate delay of 8 months in prosecuting the application. The learned Judge at page 374 of the report made an observation that the said delay indicates lack of interest or seriousness on the part of the complainant in pursuing the application. This case is on a worse footing because while in the case of Mushtaq Hussain the applications were filed promptly, here the application itself has been filed after three months. This is a reason which has pursuaded me not to take action. I may add that the publication is designed to malign Mr. Sharif-ud-din Pirzada. He has however made no grievance. This is an added reason for refraining from taking action. While I am of the opinion that the publication is mischievous, I do not think any useful purpose will be served by taking any action against the alleged contemner. S. G. D. Order accordingly.