P L D 1975 Supreme Court 490 (PLP)

HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C. ‑‑This appeal as of right under Article 186(2)(c) of the Interim Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan arises out of a judgment and order or a Full Bench of the Lahore High Court, dated the 9th May 1972, finding the five appellants herein guilty or gross contempt of Court and sentencing, each of them to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. This appeal was filed on the 21st June 1972, and the appellants were, on furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar of this Court for appearance bet ore this Court, allowed to remain at large by suspending their sentences. The appellants, who had been ejected in due process of law in the year 1965 from certain lands belonging to the wife of one of the Judges of the said High Court, were charged for having taken out a procession, on the 7th March 1972, along the Mall Road, near the Y. M. C. A. Building, carrying placards wanting to be relieved from the tyrannies of the Judge concerned who was alleged to have taken illegal possession of their lands and demanding that the judiciary 'be cleaned of corrupt official and bribe-takers. Again, on the succeeding day, namely, the 8th March 1972, they were charged for having taken out another procession from Turner Road and proceeded to the Governor's House, carrying similar placards and shouting slogans. The allegations against the learned Judge were not only false but also baseless, mischievous and highly defamatory. On the next day, namely, the 9th March 1972, photographs of the procession, showing very prominently the playcards carried proces sionists outside the Governor's House, were also published in the daily Nawa-i-Waqt with the caption that the tenants of the Judge concerned were demonstrating against him outside the Governor's House. Hence notices were issued to the processionists and the Editor. Printer and Publisher of the daily Nawa‑i‑Waqt under Article 123 of the abrogated Constitution of 1962, to show cause as to why they should not be punished for Contempt of Court. Three of the persons, to whom notices were issued, denied having taken part in the procession, but the others admitted that they had participated in the procession and tried to justify their action. Since most of the alleged contemners were illiterate persons and no counsel of their choice was available, a counsel was appointed, with their consent, by the Court to represent them. This learned counsel presented to the Court a reply in writing in which an unconditional apology had been tendered on behalf of five of the contemners. These contemners had also filed affidavit expressing their sincere regret over the incident, their feeling of shame and their repentance and prayed for mercy. Subsequently, however, another learned Advocate filed a power of attorney on behalf of the contemners and withdrew the apologies on the ground that his clients did not wish to stick to them. It was said that they wanted to contest the case on merits. The learned Advocate appointed by the Court, thereupon, was allowed to withdraw from the case. The Editor of the Nawa‑i‑Waqt, who was represented by his own counsel, also put in the plea that he had the highest respect and regard for the judiciary and that he had printed nothing more than the photographs of the procession, as a news item, since a procession had in fact been taken out. It had not been commented upon in the paper and that such a publication did not concern any of the judicial or administrative activities of the learned Judge. The Editor of the newspaper concerned also made an oral statement before the Court in the nature of an unqualified apology for the publication of the offending photograph but after this apology was accepted by the learned Judge concerned, he made another long statement to clarify the circumstances in which he came to make the apology out of "respect and esteem" for the Court and to reiterate his plea that the publication of the photographs did not amount to contempt. As already stated, the new learned counsel appearing for the other contemners tried to justify their actions and admitted that placards of the nature were carried by them. The Full Bench, after considering all the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and examining almost all the relevant decisions on the subject of contempt of Court, came to the conclusion that the Editor of the Nawa‑i‑Waqt had not committed any contempt of Court by publishing the offending photograph and the caption referred to above. The rule was accordingly discharged in respect of the Editor of the newspaper as also in respect of Khushi Muhammad and Khair Din, because, it bad not been 1 established that they had participated in the procession. The rest were, however, convicted, but the maximum penalty was not awarded in spite of the "contumacious conduct" displayed by them in Court by first filing unconditional apologies and then withdrawing them and setting up the plea of justification. They were given only one month's simple imprisonment each. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court, the appellants put in a petition on the 12th September 1972, under Order IV, rule 22 of the Rules of this Court, saying that the appeal had not been "brought in accordance with their instructions". The petition also disclosed the circumstances in which they were made to withdraw the apology initially tendered in the High Court and to contest the proceedings on the basis of the plea of justification and then to file an appeal in this Court at than instigation of certain persons believing them to be their well‑wishers. The contents of this petition reveal that they have been grievously misled and misguided by certain persons who took undue advantage of their illiteracy and simplicity for their own personal ends. They were provided with the placards and money for taking out the processions and even for contesting the contempt proceedings. They, therefore, prayed for the discharge of the learned counsel, through whom the appeal had been filed, and for permission to appoint another person in his place, as they sincerely regretted "their betrayal" and desired "that their acts may be judged in their background". Having regard to the gravity of the allegations made perhaps it will be appropriate to quote here the actual version of the appellants themselves as given in their petition of 12‑9‑1972. The relevant portions read as follows:‑ "

2. That the said appeal though maintained at the instance of‑ the petitioners is not brought in accordance with their instructions. The reasons in this behalf and the circumstances relating thereto are ' briefly submitted as under :‑ (a) that the petitioners and some others were the tenants of agricultural lands situated in Chak No. 107/G. B., Tehsil Jaranwala, District Layallpur. It belonged to a Parsi gentleman but was purchased by Begum Mr. Justice Mohammad Iqbal. They had been cultivating this land through generations and could not reconcile themselves with its change of ownership to a Muslim. Believing that their long possession under a non‑Muslim had invested in them some such rights or status as entitled them to attribute those lands to them selves, they declined to attorn to the landlady or to pay the share of produce to her. This resulted in the institution of ejectment proceedings against them in the Revenue Courts and in consequence they were ejected from the lands in the years 1965‑

66. However, they did not abdicate their efforts to regain the lands and continued to make representations and to submit applications for the purpose but they achieved‑nothing; (b) that Mr. Yousuf Ali Khan, Bar‑at‑Law belongs to the Chak of the petitioners and is practising at Lahore. He became sympathetic towards the petitioners and other ejected tenants who are simpletons and illiterate villagers. He won their confidence by telling them that they could get the lands back and could become their owners by acting in accordance with his directions. He assured them of all help and support whereupon they reactivated their efforts under his guidance by urging their demand in different forms before various functionaries and affixing their thumb‑impressions and signatures for such applications and petitions as he thought fit to drop anywhere deemed appropriate by him; (c) that Mr. Fazal‑ur‑Rahman, ex‑Manager of the lands also joined these efforts and assurances as did also Sheikh Shaukat Ali (ex‑Judge of the High Court) who was introduced to them through Mr. Yousuf Ali Khan. Various plans were given to them. off and on with the directions to execute them and in order to confirm their faith in the guidance and help thus provided, the petitioners and others were used to be influenced in different ways. They were advised to address their protests against Mr. Justice Mohammad Iqbal due to its being likely to prove more, effective. Having been taken in by the assurances and guidance in that behalf, they have been acting only as involuntary agents due to the confidence reposed by them. They sincerely believed that being well acquainted with the law and also in visibly good positions, they could secure the land, and their ownership to them ; (d) that it is under one of their plans and in accordance with the advice given that the petitioners and others took out the processions which formed the subject‑matter of the proceedings for contempt. While Mr. Yousaf Ali Khan was himself serving sentence for the offence of contempt of Court, Qadir Bakhsh petitioner was sent for by Sh. Shaukat Ali, through a servant of the, former and on reaching Lahore he was told to take out this procession of ejected tenants in Lahore and was paid Rs. 500.00 for the purpose. It was given out that the matter had been settled with the Governor and that such protest would secure them the lands. On reaching Lahore they were provided placards by Sheikh Shaukat Ali which they carried in the form of a procession and reached the Governor's House in accordance with his instruction. On return Sheikh Sahib was apprised of tire proceedings whereat be advised them to take out the procession on the following day also. They did accordingly and there at the Governor's House one gentleman, who said that he was a Secretary of the Governor, inquired the purpose of their visit and also took a written application from then. He told them to go back and occupy the lands. Tangible result thus having been made to appear to them, they returned to Sheikh Shaukat Ali who, on being acquainted of the development, congratulated them over their success whereafter they returned to their village and, as advised, after proclaiming their success on a loud‑speaker in the mosque, ploughed through the crops standing in the land with the result that they were challaned and are facing trial in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate, Jaranwala. During the investigation thereof one ruqqa written by Mr. Fazalur Rahman to Khair Din regarding the efforts bring done for them was also recovered from one of the accused Mohammad Ali and the same is on the record of that case.

3. That during the proceedings for contempt of Court the petitioners were made to realize the hollowness of their desire to get the lands, futility of their efforts and impropriety of their conduct whereupon they came to regret over all they bad done. They submitted unqualified and sincere apologies in those proceedings but Mr. Yousuf Ali Khan, later prevailed upon them to retract therefrom by telling them that the same would lead to their conviction whereas he could save them by contesting the proceedings. Believing Mr. Yousuf Ali Khan to be their well‑wisher, the petitioners agreed to act on his advice and he took charge of the case for them. The proceedings were thereafter contested in accordance with his directions but the conviction followed. Thereafter the petitioners desired that an appeal be brought in the Supreme Court wherein all the facts should be submitted and acquittal be prayed in their light. They did not have the means or money .for the purpose but Mr. Yousuf Ali Khan under took to do the needful for them. The appeal was thus brought and Mr. Yousuf Ali Khan assured them of its success. However, they were not told anything about its contents nor dirt they even know as to whether he himself filed the appeal or had asked some one else to do so." It is not for this Court to go into the truth or falsity of these allegations. It will be for the High Court to do so if it so thinks fit but it has to be pointed out hire that these allegations are also supported by the individual affidavits of each one of the appellants. Along with this petition was also filed a copy of an application which the appellants had made earlier in August 1972, to the Governor of the Punjab, disclosing the facts as detailed above and requesting him to obtain for them the pardon of the learned edge of the High Court, whom they had so grievously injured due to the machinations of their so‑called well‑wishers. A copy of this application was forwarded to the learned Judge concerned by a Member of the National Assembly by registered post on the 9th August 1972. They, thereafter, filed another application for clarification and amplification of their previous petition on the 14th October 1972, and finally through another learned Advocate, they have now filed a petition under Order XLIX, rule 6 of the Rules of this Court on the Ist April 1975, stating that since the "petitioners are simple‑minded rustic villagers and, except Allah Rakha, who was a student of raw age, they are illiterate. On account of their simplicity they were taken in by such guidances and influences as were seemingly effective as well as reliable but were in fact actuated by ulterior considerations for which they consequently utilised the petitioner without either their knowledge of the objectives or their realising the invol vements". Hence, since the High Court "has very magnanimously forgiven the petitioners (appellants) and has accepted their sincerest regrets for the situation whereto they were thus led", they prayed that the appeal may be dealt with in the light of these facts. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General has also now placed before us the documents which were sent to the High Court and have now been made over to him by the Registrar of the said High Court under a covering letter dated 1.7‑

75. This further discloses that appreciating the sincere attempts, which the appellants have been making to show their repentance for what they had been unknowingly made to do, the High Court has very generously accepted their apology even at this stage. Let these documents be placed on the record. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General also confirms that his instructions are to state that in view of the sincere regrets expressed by the appellants, the learned Judges of the High Court, including the learned Judge so mischievously maligned have accepted their apologies and have left the matter to be dealt with by this Court in such a manner as it deems fit. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned Advocate‑General, we have no reason to doubt that the appellants are sincere in regretting what has happened and are genuinely repentant. The question, however, is as to what can be done in the circumstances? What they have now said, fully justifies their committal for contempt. It cannot, after the disclosures, which have now been made in this Court, be said that the committal was wrong. In the circumstances the only thing that can be done now by this Court is to take their repentance into account and to reduce their sentences as was done in the case of Mohammad Waris v. The State (1975 S C M R 106). Since the contempt was of the High Court, it is not open to this Court, in an appeal, to accept the apology, but all that we can do is to reduce the, sentence. The learned Assistant Advocate‑General has no objection to this course being adopted and informs us that he is also of the same view. The learned counsel for the appellants throws his clients at the mercy of the Court and informs the Court that since they have already suffered 13 days' imprisonment that might be treated as sufficient to meet the ends ' of justice. In this view of the matter, since the appellants have already 13 days' simple imprisonment, we will dismiss this appeal, but reduce the sentence to the period already suffered. In doing so, however, we must make it abundantly clear that if the High Court and the learned Judge concerned had not accepted the apology tendered by the appellants, we would not have shown even this leniency, as the contempt committed by the appellants was indeed of a grace and serious nature, which called for the most deterrent punishment. The purpose of contempt, however, is not to wreak vengeance, but vindicate the honour of the Court, so that the confidence that the public retains in superior Courts in this country, is not diminished. We are happy to find that in this case, such vindication has come from the mouths of the appellants themselves. We do further feel that since now the appellants have disclosed the names of the real culprits, the people who were pit the bark of this 1itischief, should be brought to book and, therefore, we direct that a copy of this order should be forwarded to the High Court for such action as the High Court may consider proper in the circumstances of this case. The original records of this case should also be kept in safe custody by the Register in a sealed cover. S. A. H. Sentence reduced to period already undergone.