P L D 1962 (W (PLP)

Munir Ahmad for Respondent. Date of hearing : 22nd December 1961. These proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926, were started against Abdul Aziz respondent on receipt of a report from the District Judge, Montgomery, who had acted on infor mation supplied to him by the Administrative Civil Judge, Montgomery. Facts that emerged from the report were that the respondent bad used words which contained a threat to Mr. Abdul Haleem, Advocate, who was a counsel for the party opposing the respondent in proceedings for ejectment which were pending before the Administrative Civil Judge, Montgomery, in his capacity as the Rent Controller. A notice was issued by this Court to the respondent to show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of Court. In the written reply that he put in the respondent denied that he had held out any threat to Mr. Abdul Haleem, Advocate. He, however, admitted that Mr. Abdul Haleem and he had exchanged a few words which he asserted did not have the import ascribed to them by Mr. Abdul Haleem.

2. The parties were not agreed with regard to the words which passed between them on the relevant occasion and, there fore, they were directed to produce their evidence. The evidence against the respondent consists of the depositions of Mr. Abdul Haleem, Advocate, Montgomery, C. W. 1 and Chaudhri Imdad Ali, Advocate, Montgomery C. W. 2, while the evidence produced by the respondent consists of the depositions of Wazir Muhammad (R. W. 1), Muhammad Saeed (R. W. 2), Rahim Bakhsh (R. W. 3) and the respondent himself as R. W.

4. As was but to be expected, the evidence against the respondent was to the effect that the respondent had used the words ascribed to him in the complaint which Mr. Abdul Haleem had soon after the incident lodged before the Administrative Civil Judge, Montgomery, and the evidence produced by him was to the effect that some other words, which could not have been construed to contain even a veiled threat, had been exchanged between the parties. After considering the evidence, I have arrived at the conclusion that the version of Mr. Abdul Haleem, Advocate, which he gave immediately after the incident in an application which he presented before the Administrative Civil Judge, Montgomery, and which was supported by him when he appeared as C. W. 1 and also by Chaudhri Imdad Ali, Advocate (C. W. 2), is correct.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that even if it be held that the respondent had uttered the words ascribed to him by Mr. Abdul Haleem, Advocate, this Court was Incom petent to take proceedings for contempt of Court by reason of subsection (iii) of section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926. This subsection is in the following terms :‑ "No High Court shall take cognisance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a Court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Pakistan Penal Code" The contention was that as Mr. Abdul Haleem could lodge a complaint against the respondent for using abusive or threatening language, an offence punishable under a section of the Pakistan Penal Code, no action for contempt could be taken against the respondent. It appears to me that this contention cannot succeed. As I read the subsection, it means that if contempt of Court was committed with regard to a Court subordinate to the High Court and the act which constituted that offence was punishable under the Pakistan Penal Code as contempt of Court, the power envisaged by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926 shall not be exercised by the High Court. I am clear in my mind that subsection (iii) of section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act does not mean that if the act which amounts to contempt of Court is punishable under the Penal Code not as contempt of Court but some other offence under the Penal Code, the jurisdiction of the High Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926, is ousted. A useful example of the case which would fall within subsection (iii) of section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926, is that of offering insult to a judicial officer engaged In his judicial work. This act would amount to an offence under section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code and the jurisdiction of the High Court to take proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1926, shall not exist.

4. Two questions now arise for determination : (1) Whether the act established against the respondent attracts the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act and (2) whether action, and if so what, should be taken against the respondent. The words used by the respondent did contain a threat and as it is hardly open to question that a thing done which is likely to interfere with the proceedings of a Court, though that thing may be a threat to a counsel engaged in those proceedings for one party or the other, amounts to contempt of Court, I would hold that is has been established that the respondent had committed contempt of Court.

5. I will now take up the other question that requires determination. It appears to me that Mr. Abdul Haleem had been a bit touchy in the matter. The remarks made by the respondent might well have been overlooked and if I could refuse to take action on the ground that the proceedings appear to have been motivated by a desire other than one of advancement of justice, I would probably have declined to take any action. But I have no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that just a nominal sentence would suffice. Consequently, finding the respondent guilty of contempt of Court, I direct that he shall pay al fine of Rs. 20 (Twenty only). I would, further, direct that default in payment of fine shall entail simple imprisonment for fifteen days. The respondent is granted time till the 3rd of February 1962 to pay the fine hereby imposed on him. K. B. A./A. H. Order accordingly.