P L D 1954 Lahore 674 (PLP)

S. A. RAHMAN, J.‑Agha Hamid Ali, ex‑District Food Controller, Lahore, was heirs prosecuted under section 16' P. P. C. and section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in the Court of the Special Judge, Lahore. The Crown moved this Court for transfer of those cases under section 526, Criminal Procedure Code, to some other competent Court. The transfer applications were hard by Kaikaus J., sitting in Single Bench. In the course of the proceedings before him, an affidavit was filed by Mr. Muzaf far‑ud‑Din, Magistrate 1st Class, who was an important prosecution witness in the case against Agha Hamid Ali, to the effect that Maulvi Muhammad Ibrahim Pleader had conveyed to him that the acquittal of Agha Hamid Ali had been arranged and‑ that be should be on his guard while giving evidence against him. After considering the matter, Kaikaus J. was of the opinion that there was evidence of misconduct against the respondent which needed further enquiry. A Bench of three judges was, therefore, constituted to hold the enquiry on the following charges :‑ "That you, Maulvi Muhammad Ibrahim Pleader, Lahore, are guilty of professional misconduct as follows :‑‑ 1. That on 23rd July 1953, you went to Lyallpur and met Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din, Magistrate 1st class, who was an important witness in the case, Crown v. Agha Hamid Ali, ex‑District Food Controller' under section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, pending in the Court of the Special Judge, Lahore, and told him that Agha Hamid Ali was going to be acquitted, that arrangements had been made for his acquittal and further told him `tusan ki lainar ehde vichon' and when he told you that he would state what he had seen, you told him 'soch samajh key shatiadz, dena' and thus tried to tamper with this evidence. That the above constitutes a reasonable cause for your removal or suspension from practice. (2) That on 10th October 1953, Mr. Jalalud Dir Qureshi, Advocate, filed your affidavit in the Court of MT. Justice B. Z. Kaikaus in connection with the transfer application of the case mentioned in para 1 and therein you stated that you had never seen Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din Magistrate in your life and that you knew nothing of the case of Agha Hamid All before the 29th June 1953, which state ments were in fact not true. That the above constitutes a reasonable cause for your removal or suspension from practice." " Subsequently in answer to a notice to show cause, Maulvi Muhammad Ibrahim represented through his counsel, Mr. Mahmud Ali Qasuri, that as the allegations in the second charge constituted an offence, the proper course would be not to take proceedings for professional misconduct in respect of that charge, but to launch a criminal prosecution, if the case be found to be one in which a prosecution should be ordered. By order dated the 26th of April 1954, the second charge was in consequence dropped for the present and it was directed that Kaikaus?., who is a member of this Bench, would consider whether there should be a criminal prosecution or not. The question of taking disciplinary action in respect of the second charge was to be held over till the result of the prosecution, if any was known. In his written statement the respondent has taken up the position that lie did go to Lyallpur on the 23rd of July 1953 as he had to appear before the Custodian of Evacuee Property, Punjab to argue certain cases which had been fixed for hearing next day at Lyallpur by that officer. He denied that he had met Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din at Lyallpur as alleged or that he had any talk with him. He repudiated the suggestion that he had been guilty of professional misconduct. A number of witnesses have been examined on behalf of the Crown and the respondent has adduced evidence in rebuttal. He also made his own statement on solemn affirmation. Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din P. C. S., who is now attached as Administrative Officer, Pakistan Special Police, Lahore, deposed that the respondent met him at Layallpur on the 23rd of July 1953, at about sunset time, at the Dak Bungalow, also known as the Civil Rest House, where Mr. Muzaffar‑ud- Din was residing in those days, and in the course of his conversation, gave him to understand that arrangements had been made for procuring the acquittal of Agha Hamid Ali and that he (Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din) should not worry himself over the case against him. The witness interpreted these words to mean that he should not make a correct statement in that case. He formed the impression that the Special Judge who was to try Agha Hamid Ali, had been approached by the respondent and, therefore, the acquittal was a foregone conclusion. He definitely remembered the respondent uttering the words "tusi ki lainan ehde vichon" (what have you to get out of it). The witness took these words to mean that he should not worry over the case and that he was not going to be benefited if the accused was convicted. He told him in reply that he had to give evidence according to what he had observed and could not resile from his statement. On this the respondent remarked, "All right, Please yourself but be on your guard while giving evidence". This is a free rendering of the Punjabi words used by the respondent which were " pher soch scimajh ke shahadat dena''. The witness understood from this that he was going to be subjected to lengthy and personal cross‑examination. The respondent then went away. Next morning the witness met Mr. Hamid‑ud‑Din, A. D. M., Lyallpur, in his retiring room which he used to share with him. In those days, Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din was posted as Magistrate 1st Class at Lyallpur. Chaudhri Nasrullah Khan, another Magistrate 1st Class, had also come there. The A. D. M. informed him that the respondent had seen him and Mr. Nasarullah Khan, the previous evening and had talked to them about the case of Agha Hamid Ali and also about an inquiry that was being made against Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din at Lahore. According to the A. D. M. and Mr. Nasarallah Khan, the respondent had told them that Agha Hamid Ali was going to be acquitted and that a serious in injury was going on against Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑lain. On this the witness informed Mr. Hamid‑ud‑Din and Mr. Nasarullah Khan that the respondent had seen him also and while mentioning Agha Hamid Ali's case, had practically threatened him. Witness further explained that the inquiry pending against him at Lahore concerned the issue of arms licences during the period that he was working as Personal Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, in 1951. He had received a questionnaire about it from the C. I. D., some five months previously and the inquiry was still pending. Witness came to Lahore on the 26th of July 1953 as he had to give evidence against Agha Hamid Ali the next day. On the morning of the 27th of July, before the proceedings started in Court, witness had informed Mr. G. M. Khan, Special Public Prosecutor, of what had transpired between him and the respondent at Lyallpur. It appears that the behaviour of the Special Judge, Mian Ghulam Rabbani, towards the prosecution witnesses in Agha Hamid Ali's case, was taken strong exception to, by the witnesses themselves and by the prosecution who decided to move for a transfer of the two cases from his Court. Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din gave his affidavit setting out the facts deposed to by him, to support those transfer applications. In this affidavit, Mr. Muzaffar‑ud -Din clearly recited in paragraph No. 2 that the respondent during his visit to Lyallpur on the 23rd of July 1953, had conveyed to him that arrangements to secure the acquittal of Agha Hamid Ali in both cases pending in the Court of the Special Judge, Lahore, had been successfully completed and that he should be on his guard in giving evidence. This affidavit is dated the 30th of July 1953. It may be mentioned that the transfer applications, after con sultation with the law officers of the Crown, were actually moved in this Court on the 1st of August 1955. The applica tions became infructuous because while they were pending, Mian Ghulam, Rabbani proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement. The respondent's case is that he went by car from Lahore to Lyallpur on the 23rd of July 1953, driving straight to the house of the A. D. M., Mr. Hamid‑ud‑Din. He had with him three other persons in his car, namely, Hafiz Aziz Ahmad (P. W. 3), Sh. Muhammad Ibrahim (R. W. 4) and Maulvi Ghulam Rasul (R. W. 8). The two last‑named were the clients of the respondent, for whom he had to appear before the Custodian on the 24th of July 1953 at Lyallpur. I4afiz Aziz Ahmad was anxious to secure a plot of land at Lyallpur for erection of a shop and wanted "accurate information" (as this witness suphemistically put it) with regard to the allotment policy for such sites, from the A. D. M., through the respondent. The respondent admits that Mr. Nasarullah Khan Magistrate also came to the house of Mr. Hamid‑ud‑Din while he was there and further that he did happen to mention casually to them, when he was asked about the latest news from Lahore, that an inquiry was being made against a former P. A. of the Deputy Com missioner, Lahore. When pressed to say who the gentleman was, he said that he was either Mr. Cheema or some other officer. The A. D. M. told him that investigations were being carried out against Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din who was then posted at Lyallpur, and that those proceedings had been dropped. The respondent then gave out that he did not know the name of the gentleman but that he had heard at Lahore that investigations were still proceeding. He then left the A. D. M.'s house along with his companions and went straight to the factory of Sh. Muhammad Ibrahim R. W. without stopping anywhere on the way. They offered their evening prayers at the factory, had their meals and then the respon dent busied himself in the preparation of his case till 11 p. m. when he went to bed. Next morning after taking his tea he went straight to the office of the Custodian at 7‑15 p. m. and appeared before him. He denied that he had known Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din at all or that he had ever met him at Lyallpur. The question that falls for determination then is whether the word of Muzaffar‑ud‑Din should be accepted in prefer ence to that of the respondent. On behalf of the Crown, evidence has been led in corroboration of Mr. Muzaffar‑ud Din's allegations. Both Mr. Hamid‑ud‑Din A. D. M. (P. W. 2) and Mr. Nasarullah Khan (P. W. 3) have substantially supported the version of Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din. They state that the respondent met them at Lyallpur on the afternoon of 23rd of July 1953 and that in the course of a talk with them, he gave to understand that Mr. Muzffar‑ud‑Din who used to be the Personal Assistant to the Deputy Commis sioner, Lahore, would have to stand a departmental inquiry and that he. (Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din) was unnecessarily bother ing himself. about Agha Hamid Ali's case, inasmuch as the said gentleman was going to be acquitted. He added that the respondent himself had been engaged in the case on behalf of Agha Hamid Ali but that lie would not appear in Court as the judge was his personal friend. Both of them further confirmed that next morning when Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din met them ii) the retiring room of the A. D. M., the latter informed them that the respondent had also seen him and held out what virtually amounted to a threat so that he might water down his statement against Agha Hamid Ali. There is also the statement of C. W. 1 Mr. Gulzar Muhammad Khan, Special Public Prosecutor, Lahore, who stated on solemn affirmation: that he. first learnt from a D. S. P. that Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din had been approached or behalf of Agha Hamid Ali by the respondent who had also met Mr. Hamid‑ud‑Din and another E. A. C.. with the clear object of having it conveyed to Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din that he would be well‑advised in toning down his statement against Agha Hamid All. On the 27th of July 7953, in the morning, Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din personally met hire before the proceeding started in the Court of the Special Judge, Mian Ghulam Rabbani and confirmed what he had already learnt from the D. S. P. Mr. G. M. Khan informed his I. G., who was at Karachi, on the telephone the same night and followed it up with a letter dated the 31st of July 1953, in which this information was duly set out At the request of the counsel for the Crown, Mr. Sharaf Ali Shah, Reader to the Additional District and Session Judge Lahore, was also examined as P. W. 4. He had worked as Reader to Mian Ghulam Rabbani, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Lahore, in April 1953 and had previously worked as reader to the respondent when he was posted as art Additional District and Sessions Judge. Lahore. This witness stated that the respondent had been coming to him in Court, in Agha Hamid Ali's case, to get the presence of Mr. Nisar Qutab, counsel for Agha Hamid Ali, recorded on, the file on one or two hearings and that on the 7th of April 1353 before 9 a.m. when the witness went to office, the respondent met him and told hint that Mian Ghulam Robbani had been there before the arrival of the official and had left word that the file of Agha Hamid Ali's case should be sent to him at his house through the respondent. The witness considered it improper to hand over the judicial record to the respondent and put him off by saying that it required completion. In the meantime an orderly arrived and he sent the record through him to Mian Ghulam Rabbani who was on leave from .the 3rd of April till the 14th of April 1953, but was still at Lahore. Witness himself proceeded on leave on the 30th of April 1953 and, till then, the record of the case had not been returned to him. When asked to explain why ire had refused to hand over the record of the case to the respondent, he alleged that he had information that negotiations were going on between the respondent and Agha Hamid Ali to secure his acquittal and he was apprehensive that the record might be tampered with If he is to be believed, Agha Hamid Ali had come to him about the end of March 1953 wanted to find out from him through which source lie could approach Mian Ghulam Rabbani. Witness had told him that the respondent was a friend of Mian Sahib and Agha Hamid Ali then informed him that he had already contacted the respondent who demanded a large sum of money which he could not afford to pay, and as it was only a week or ten days later that the respondent came to him for the records, he concluded that the negotiations had been successful. What Agha Hamid Ali had told the witness does not constitute substantive evidence, but witness was allowed to make this statement in explanation of his own conduct. The respondent's contention is that the story of his trying to influence Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din was false as the respondent, who has past judicial experience, must have known that fee could not hope to persuade Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din, a Magistrate, to go back on his evidence. M. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din was the officer who had conducted a raid on the premises of Agha Hamid Ali, had recovered the money said to have been paid to Agha Hamid Ali as illegal gratification and to have prepared a memorandum bearing on the facts of the raid in his own hand, There are no doubt relevant considerations, but it does not follow that an attempt to persuade Mr. Muzafiar‑ud‑Din to tone down his evidence would have been futile or that no hope of benefit could result from such a course. If the witness could be induced to make some significant admissions in favour of the accused, it might have introduced an element of doubt in the case. We find from the record that Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din was actually subjected to an exhaustive cross‑examination at Agha Hamid Ali's trial. Another reason advanced by the respondent why he could not approach Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din was that he was practically a stranger to him. Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din says that the respondent was his Additional District and Sessions judge at Lahore and he had called on him twice in his office to pay his respects, in those days. He had also met him at several functions, though he admitted that he could not claim to have friendly relations with the respondent. The latter denies that Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din had ever called on him, or that he knew him. He points out that normally Magistrates do not call on the Additional District and Sessions Judges. Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din, however, explained that as the respondent was hearing appeals against his orders, he thought it fit to call on him. There would be nothing unbelievable in such a procedure. The respondent has not been able to put forward any cogent reason why Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din should have come out with such a damaging allegation against him. All that he could suggest was that Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din had played into the hands of Mr. G. M. Khan, Special Public Prosecutor who had reason to dislike the respondent because the latter had snubbed him when he tried to approach him in a case. Mr. G. M. Khan denied the truth of this allegation. He also averred that because Mian Ghulam Rabbani, for reasons of his own, had insulted the prosecution witnesses in Agha Hamid Ali's case, including Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din, when they appeared before him, the witnesses and the Special Public Prosecutor made a common cause against the judge and in order to strengthen the petitions for transfer of the cases and to create a sensation, they dragged in the name of the respondent who was known to be a friend of the Special Judge. This seems to be a poor reason for Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din to join in a conspiracy against the respond ent who had given no cause for offence personally to him. Prima facie it appears to us that there could be no possible motive for Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din to perjure himself by putting in a false affidavit against the respondent. The allegation made through Mr, Manzur Ali (R. W. 6), a retired E. A. C. and a wholesale sugar dealer that he was witness to a quarrel between Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din and Agha Hamid Ali at the latter's house, has no bearing on the question why Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din should have been anxious to get the respond ent into trouble, for no rhyme or reason. In respect of the corroborative evidence of Mr. Hamid‑ud- Din and Mr. Nasrullah Khan, the respondent's plea is that they were brother officer: of Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din and were probably induced by him to lend support to his affidavit by their evidence. He stresses the fact that in the affidavit filed by Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din to the course of the transfer proceed ings, there was no reference to the respondent having met Mr. Hamid‑ud‑Din and Mr. Nasrullah Khan and to have con veyed through them to Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din that he should not unnecessarily concerned himself over Agha Hamid Ali's case. For the first time, he points out, it was in October 1952 that Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din was called for a statement before Kaikaus J., and he then revealed the names of Mr. Hamid‑ud- Din and Mr. Nasrullah Khan as corroborative witnesses. This brings us to the question whether Mr. Hamid‑ud‑Din and Mr. Nasrullah Khan had any reason to dislike the respondent so that they could fall in with the wishes of Mr. Muzaffar- ud‑Din and give false evidence to support his allegations. The respondent himself admits that his relations with Mr. Hamid‑ud‑Din were of a friendly nature on the 23rd of July 1952 despite the fact that previously there had been some misunderstanding between them. Mr. Hamid‑ud‑Din had written two letters, one addressed to the respondent and the other to the Honourable Mr. Muhammad Khan Leghari, Minister, Punjab Government, in connection with a bail application disposed of by this Court. Those letters had been intercepted by a party interested against Mr. Hamid‑ud -Din and formed the subject of a contempt notice against him from this Court. The respondent asserted that Mr. Hamid‑ud- Din came to suspect that the respondent was responsible for passing on those letters to the faction opposed to the A. D. M. but that later he had been able to assure him that he was not guilty of such treachery to a friend. The affair had consequent ly been smoothed over. This is apparent from the fact that the respondent himself went to the A. D. M's house at Lyallpur on the 23rd of July 1953 to commend to his attention the case of Hafiz Aziz Ahmad for allotment of a shop site. The respondent has also mentioned that during the summer of last year there was an incident at the house of one, Muhammad Nazir, in Lyallpur, in which the A. D. M. was involved and in that connection, had approached the respondent to use his good offices with Muhammad Nazir in order that the latter might tone down his statement against him. The respondent advised him that Muhammad Nazir had already made a statement to the police and that it would be futile to contact him. This does not show that their relations had become strained in consequence. Mr. Nasrullah Khan did not even know the respondent before he met him at the A. D. M's house at Lyallpur on the 23rd of July 1953 A feeble suggestion was thrown that the respondent had some differences with the step‑mother of Mr. Nasrullah Khan when she was at Amritsar, to which place the respondent belongs. Mr. Nasrullah Khan denied all knowledge of any such differences and the respondent himself admits that he learnt subsequently during the present inquiry that Mr. Nasrullah Khan was the son of a lady with whom he had some dispute at Amritsar. There is no independent evidence available on that point. It was further stated that Mr. Nasrullah Khan was a friend of Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din as both had come together on one occasion to Mr. Mahmud Ali Qasuri to ask for the hand of a girl of his family in marriage for a relative of Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din. These factors do not, in, our opinion, succeed in establishing that Mr. Nasrullah Khan had any private grudge to feed against the respondent. We find that there is no substance in the plea raised by the respondent that Mr. Hamid‑ud‑Din and Mr. Nasrullah Khan and thrown in their lot with Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din merely because he was a colleague of theirs. In his rebuttal evidence, the respondent has examined Khan Bahadur Ch. Faqir Hussain, a landlord of Jhang, who admittedly arrived at the house of Mr. Hamid‑ud‑Din at Lyallpur on the 23rd of July 1953, in the evening, when the respondent was still there. His evidence is to the effect that on the day in question, when he reached the house: of Mr. Hamid‑ud‑Din, the latter's brother asked him to sit in the lawn and after some time, Mr. Nasarullah Khan also came there, to be followed by Mr. Hamid‑Lid‑Din who was accompanied by the respondent. The witness could not say from where Mr. Hamid‑ud‑Din and the respondent had come up as the house in question is a big one. He did not notice any other persons who might have come with the respondent. According to Ch. Faqir Hussain, they talked of things in general but no case was mentioned in the course of the conversation. Ch. Faqir Hussain claims to be a friend of Mr. Hamid‑ud‑Din and had casually gone to his house to pay him a visit. The evidence is relied upon by the respondent for showing that the version given by Mr. Nasrullah Khan and Mr. Hamid‑ud‑Din is incorrect. On the contrary, Mr. C. M. Sharif on behalf of the Crown has argued that the statement of Ch. Faqir Hussain is consistent with the prosecution allegations. He suggests that Ch. Faqir Hussain arrived there at a late stage and that the relevant talk had already taken place before he reached there. Mr. Hamid‑ud‑Din could not recall whether he was sitting in the office room of his house when the respondent arrived or whether he had offered him tea. He was, however, positive that he was not sitting with the respondent in his dining room when the arrival of Mr. Nasr ullah Khan was announced. He stated that the respondent had parked his car in front of the building on the road and that they sit in the lawn in front of the house. The lawn in question is marked X in the rough site plan (Exh. P. W. 2/1) which was produced by the respondent. The car, according to Mr. Hamid‑ud‑Din, stopped at a place marked in red pencil and not at the point A in blue pencil as alleged by the respondent. He thought that there were two men accompanying the respondent who stayed near the car whereas the respondent alleges that they sat on a bench in the lawn itself. Mr. Hamid‑ud‑Din made it clear that the bench in question was not at the point Y indicated in this plan but somewhere at Y/1 near the kitchen. If Mr. Hamid- ud‑Din is to be believed, Ch. Faqir Hussain had arrived while the respondent was about to leave. That Ch. Faqir Hussain is not blessed with a very strong memory is clear from the fact that he retained the impression that he had stayed at the A. D. M.'s house for about an hour. There are indications in the other rebuttal evidence to the effect that Ch. Faqir Hussain could not have been present at the time when the respondent had a talk with Mr. Hamid-ud‑Din and Mr. Nasrullah Khan about any cases. Although Hafiz Aziz Ahmad (R. W. 3) and Sh. Muhammad Ibrahim (R. W. 4) said that they were sitting near the others when Ch. Faqir Hussain came there in the lawn where they were joined by the Additional District Magistrate and the respondent as well as Ch. Nasrullah Khan, they made no reference to any talk about an inquiry pending against Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din at Lahore or about the case of Agha Hamid Ali. Incidentally these two witnesses made discrepant statements as to where they initially sat. Hafiz Aziz Ahmad said that he sat in the verandah while the respondent went inside tire house. On the contrary, Sh. Muhammad Ibrahim asserted that they sat in lawn throughout. Leaving this minor discrepancy aside, it is significant that Maulvi Ghulam Rasul (R. W. 8), who was the third person with them, definitely states that while the respondent was going towards his car he mentioned the inquiry against Mr. Hamid‑ud‑Din. It seems doubtful whether any of these three persons were within earshot when the respondent talked with Mr. Hamid‑ud‑Din and Mr. Nasarullah Khan. In all probability they were not in the laws, where these three gentlemen sat and had a talk together. This is a reasonable inference from the variations in the statements of these three witnesses. It appears that before leaving, the respondent told the A. D. M. that he had something to say to him in private and on this they walked aside The respondent then talked to the A. D. M. about the desire of Hafiz Aziz Ahmad to acquire a plot for a ship. After this talk, they returned to the spot where they had been sitting in the lawn and by this time Ch. Faqir Hussain also arrived. This seems to be borne out by the recital of facts given by Maulvi Ghulam Faqir (R. W. 8) Ch. Faqir Husain may have been mistaken in thinking that Mr. Nasrullah Khan arrived just after he did. Viewing the evidence in this line, we do not think that there is any material discrepancy between the statement of Ch. Faqir Hussain and the evidence given by Mr. Hamid‑Lid‑Din and Mr. Nasarullah Khan. The plea of the respondent that he did not go to see Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din at all that‑ day, rests on his own statement arid the statements of Hafiz Aziz Ahmad (R. W. 3) Sh. Muhammad Ibrahim (R. W. 4) and Maulvi Ghulam Rasul (R. W. 8). Some discrepancies in the statements of these R. Ws. have been noted above. We find their evidence to be extremely unimpressive. It is obvious that these persons were under the influence of the respondent and could be persuaded to depose in his favour. Two of them were the clients of the respondent and the third was a person for whom the respondent had put in a good word with the A. D. M. We are not, therefore, prepared to accept their testimony on its face value. We consider that the statements made by Mr: Hamid‑ud‑Din and Mr. Nasarullah Khan in `corroboration of Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din's statement are trustworthy. Reference has already been made to the statement made by Mr. G. M. Khan, Special Public Prosecutor, as C. W. I in this inquiry. Much was sought to be made of the fact that in the transfer application, which was drafted by this witness in Agha Hamid Ali's case, he used the words " managed to convey " in the paragraph relating to the attempt of the respondent to tamper with Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din's evidence. It was contended by the respondent that this implied that the respondent had not really met Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din personally and the allegation was being merely made that lie had, through the medium of other persons, sent a message to Mr. Muzaffar ud‑Din. Mr. G. M. Khan has told us that on the morning of the 30th of July, he had met Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din and told him the gist of what he had put down in the transfer petition regarding the information that Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din had supplied. The latter objected to the phraseology which the Special Public Prosecutor had used but he told him that he was in haste and there was no time for a correction. We must concede that Mr. G. M. Khan used a loose sort of expression and that if he had been so minded he could have made the correction before the transfer petition was handed over to the Advocate‑General for being presented in this Court. It is clear, however, that this does not adversely affect the position of Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din. That the real position was in accord with the stand taken by Mr. Muzaffar -ud‑Din is borne out by the secret and confidential letter No. 277/PP/L dated 31st of July 1953 that Mr G. M. Khan wrote to Khan Rahmatullah Khan. Inspector‑General of Police, detailing the circumstances which had necessitated the transfer applications. In the fourth paragraph of this letter, for which no privilege was claimed on behalf of the Special Police Establishment, Mr. G. M. Khan had expressed himself as follows :‑ "While the information conveyed by Mian Muzaffar‑ud- Din that Maulvi Ibrahim had gone to Lyallpur on the 23rd July and conveyed to him that arrangements with the judge to secure the acquittal of Agha Hamid Ali in both the cases have matured and been completed, lie (Magistrate) should be on his guard when giving evidence the latter (sic) events confirmed the fears and suspicions thus aroused." This passage is not artistically drafted but the meaning is plain that it was to Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din personally that the respondent had communicated the information that Agha Hamid Ali was going to be acquitted. We are not, therefore. impressed by the discrepancy between the phraseology employed by Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din in his affidavit and that by the Special Public Prosecutor the transfer applications. The suggestion that till then, the story was in a nebulous stage and that it was evolved subsequently when Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din was called to make a statement before Kaikaus, J., strikes us as rather puerile. The absence of a reference to the respondent's meeting with Mr. Hamid‑ud‑Din and Mr. Nasarullah Khan in Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din's affidavit was also commented upon by the respondent. Not much importance can be attached to this omission. The respondent himself admits meeting them on the relevant date. Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din explained that he was confining his affidavit to the precise point that was necessary for the transfer application and was omitting all unnecessary details. It was only when he was examined at length before Kaikaus, J. that the other relevant facts came out. We are unable to accede to the contention raised by the respon dent that Mr. Muzaffar‑ud‑Din finding himself in the awkward position of having his statement on solemn affir mation pitted against that of the respondent. resorted to the stratagen of pressing into service the aid of two of his col leagues who wantonly agreed to bolster up his position with false statements Sharaf Ali Shah's evidence is pertinent more to the second charge than to the first. The respondent admits that he had appeared for Agha Hamid Ali, on one hearing on the 29th of June 1953, but he says, that was a casual appearance at the request of the accused and Agha Saadat Ali Khan, retired Superintendent, Police, who belongs to the brotherhood of Agha Hamid Ali and who joined in requesting him to appear for him on that date. He denied that he was engaged in the case. In support of this denial there is also the statement of Agha Hamid Ali as R. W. 1, with whose father, the respondent was apparently on friendly terms. With this aspect of the matter, we are not really concerned in this inquiry, Sharaf Ali Shah's evidence, however, tends to show that the respondent was interested in Agha Hamid Ali's case whether or not he had been formally engaged in the case. The respondent has attempted to contradict Sharaf Ali Shah by calling into the witness‑box the three orderlies who were attached to the Special Judge. Sharaf Ali Shah's statement is that he had given the file to Ismail peon to be taken to Mian Ghulam Rabbani's house after the respondent had delivered the message on behalf of Mian Ghulam Rabbani to him, on the 7th of April 1953, Ismail has denied that he took any such file to the Judge's house that day or in the month of April at all. This witness had been an orderly to the respondent when he was Additional District and Sessions judge at Lahore. The evidence of the other orderlies was to the effect that Hussain Bakhsh (R. W. 9) (mali of the Sessions Court) had been asked one evening by Sharaf Ali Shah to call Karam Elahi peon (R. W. 10) and he did so. Karam Elahi deposed that he was questioned whether he was the orderly who had taken the file of Agha Hamid Ali's case to the judge's house and answered in the negative to the question put in this behalf by Sharaf Ali Shah, It may be that Sharaf Ali Shah had forgotten which orderly had carried out this errand and was, therefore, making inquiries from all the orderlies. Eventu ally he seems to have come to the conclusion that Ismail was the orderly concerned. Ismail's denial may be taken with a grain of salt because of his having served the respondent as an orderly when he was posted at Lahore. It is difficult to imagine that this orderly should have remembered definitely and positively that he was never commissioned in April 1953 to take a file to the judge's house. It is now more than a year after the incident that he was called to give evidence in the inquiry. Sharaf Ali Shah was not proved to be actuated by malice against the respondent. A suggestion was made that he had been reprimanded by Mian Ghulam Rabbani for his careless work and was forced to go on leave. This might indicate that he had some cause to dislike Mian Ghulam Rabbani but why that dislike should have been transferred vicariously to the respondent is not clear. We find that Sharaf Ali Shah in so far as he suggests that Maulvi Muhammad Ibrahim was interesting himself in Agha Hamid Ali's case is not open to any serious criticism. After carefully reviewing the whole evidence on record, we nave come to the conclusion that the first charge as framed has been brought home to the respondent. Tamper ing with witnesses in a criminal case is one of the grossest forms of misconduct in which an officer of the Court such as the respondent was in his capacity as a Pleader enrolled by‑ this Court, could indulge. For such conduct, in ours opinion, there can be only one punishment and that is dismissal from practice. The respondent is not a law graduate but was allowed the privilege of practice under a temporary rule framed by this Court for the benefit of a certain category of 'refugee judicial officers. He has abused that privilege and forfeited the right to be associated with the administration of justice. We, therefore, direct that the respondent be dis missed from practice. A. H. Respondent dismissed from practice.