2009 PLP 780 (SCMR)

ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, C.J.

This Criminal Original Petition has been registered on the application filed by Syed Sharifuddin Prizada, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court and others regarding manhandling of their client, namely, Irfan Ali, in the Court Premises.

2. Briefly stating facts of the case are that a case was registered against Sheikh Muhammad Munir, Chief Executive of the Haris Steel Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. on the complaint filed by the Acting President of the Bank of Punjab, Lahore, in pursuance of report of audit team mentioning that loans of billions of rupees were sanctioned to fake and unidentified borrowers against inflated/unreal value of collaterals and non-existent business places. It was alleged that the National Accountability Bureau started making efforts to force the administration of Messrs Haris Steel Industries to enter into plea bargain with NAB. Feeling aggrieved, Messrs Haris Steel Industries filed Writ Petition No.7104 of 2008 before the Lahore High Court, Lahore. A learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, vide order dated 18-6-2008, directed the NAB authorities that no uncalled for harassment shall be caused to the petitioners. On 1-7-2008, the matter again came up for hearing before the High Court when the petitioners counsel complained that the NAB authorities were harassing the petitioners by conducting raids one after the other and removed their vehicles, office equipments, cash amount and other valuable items. The High Court, on the said date, again directed the NAB authorities that no further coercive measures should be applied against the petitioners, till, the next date of hearing. C.M.No.4 of 2008 was also filed in the said writ petition wherein vide order dated 8-7-2008 the High Court deputed the bailiff to visit the site and prepare a detailed report to be placed before the Court on the next date of hearing. After submission of the report by the bailiff, the case was fixed for 15-7-2008, when one of the learned Judges showed his inability to hear the petition, hence, the office was directed to place the matter before some other Bench. Thereafter Messrs Haris Steel Industries filed Constitution Petitions bearing No.4 to 7 of 2008, under Article 186-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, for transfer of the writ petitions with the prayer that the same may be withdrawn from the file of Lahore High Court and be heard and decided by this Court.

3. The matter came up for hearing before this Court on 24-7-2008 when the following order was passed:

"By consent adjourned to 6-8-2008. Notice be repeated to respondents Nos.7 and

10. Respondent No.1 is directed to file concise statement disclosing the entire facts and maintain the position which was subsisting prior to restraining order dated 18-6-2008 passed by the learned High Court." On the same day at about 12.30 p.m. Syed Sharifuddin Prizada, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court along with Mr. Wasim Sajjad, Dr. Babar Awan, Mr. Arshad Ali Chaudhry and other Senior Advocates appeared before this Court and complained that after passing of the above order, in the morning, accountant of Messrs Haris Steel, namely, Irfan Ali, while sitting with Mr. Arshad Ali Chaudhry, learned Advocate-on-Record, in the cafeteria of the Bar Room inside the premises of this Court, was mercilessly beaten up by NAB officials, namely, Col. (R) Tariq, Investigating Officer and M. Aslam, Member FCIW, along with three other persons, in presence of the Advocates as well as media personnel. The written complaint, filed by the learned Senior Advocates of this Court, was registered as Criminal Original Petition No.38 of 2008. In this regard four affidavits were also filed before this Court by (i) Syed Muzammal Hussain, President Press Association of Supreme Court, (ii) Mr. Wasim Akhtar, Reporter, Aaj TV, (iii) Mr. Arshad Ali Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record and (iv) Irfan Ali, the victim, wherein they unanimously stated that the victim Irfan Ali, was taken into custody from the Court premises (Bar Room), dragged, severely beaten, thrown in a car and was taken away by some persons in civil dress and that when asked by the deponents as to why the victim was being beaten in the Court premises, the said officials not only refused to disclose their names but misbehaved with the deponents and other journalists, who were present at the spot. They also tried to snatch cameras from media personnel, footage whereof was available with them.

4. The learned Attorney-General for Pakistan, the Chairman NAB and the Prosecutor-General NAB were, in pursuance of the complaint, summoned and were directed to produce the detenu as well as the above named NAB officials before the Court. On the same day, at about 2-00 p.m. the Chairman NAB along with NAB officials and the detenu appeared before this Court. The NAB officials admitted that the detenu was arrested from the premises of this Court, however, pleaded that it was done in order to execute warrants of arrest issued against him. This Court considering that prima facie, the NAB officials, namely, Col (R) Tariq and M. Aslam were guilty of committing gross contempt of this Court ordered that they be remanded to police custody to initiate proceedings under Article 204 of the Constitution. The detenu Irfan Ali was ordered to be set at liberty, forthwith, and the matter was adjourned to 30-7-2008 for further proceedings. .On 30-7-2008, the above contemnors, while placing themselves at the mercy of the Court, filed Unconditional Apology in writing vide C.M.A. No.296 of 2008.

5. Moot question in the instant case is as to whether the tendering of unconditional written apology by the contemnors and placing themselves at the mercy of the Court would be sufficient to let them off unpunished, and if not, what should be the quantum of punishment that they deserve to suffer. The trend of case-law on the subject, would suggest that when a contemner tenders unconditional apology at the first opportunity and the Court is satisfied that his regret and repentance are sincere, ordinarily, he is pardoned. However, it is also well settled that it is not a rule, to be invariably followed in all cases and much would depend upon the circumstances of each case.

6. No doubt the law enforcement agencies are duty bound to cause arrest of the persons required, but it should be done in a decent and proper manner with decorum. Had the instant been a simple case of arrest in the Court premises, the contemnors could have been excused on the ground that they were not aware of the decorum of the Court but the acts of dragging, manhandling and beating the accused in the Bar Room situated in the Court premises, misbehaving with the Advocates and the media personnel can by no stretch of imagination be regarded as innocent and bona fide acts rather it appears to be a flagrant attempt to undermine and lowering authority of the Court besides disturbing its decorum. In such like cases the Courts, in order to safeguard the dignity and honour of the Courts are not reluctant to initiate contempt proceedings against the contemnors. The contemnors, in this case, who are the custodians of law, were not supposed to act in such a disgusting manner, particularly when this Court had issued specific directions for maintaining the position subsisting prior to 18-6-2008 in accordance with the order passed by the learned High Court.

7. Normally, the contemnors would have been proceeded against, on account of the aforesaid acts had they not placed themselves at the mercy of the Court by submitting unconditional apology, but since they have admitted the allegations and tendered unconditional apology at the very out set, by stating that they would remain careful in future, therefore, following the ratio decidendi of the cases reported as Zulfiqar Ali v. The State 1999 SCMR 2810 and (ii) Raja Munawwar and others v. The State 1990 SCMR 215, we feel it appropriate to accept the unconditional apology submitted by the applicants.

8. For the foregoing reasons the proceedings in pursuance of order dated 24-7-2008 passed by this Court are dropped and the contemnors are ordered to be released forthwith. These are the reasons for our short order of even dated, announced in open Court. N.H.Q./S-12/SC Contempt proceedings dropped.