1984 P Cr (PLP)

3. H.C. Allah Ditta stated that on previous evening i.e. 23rd February, 1982 he went to the D.S.P's place, where Chulam Shabbir detenu was under custody whose chains were held by Constable Muhammad Aslam. S.I. Fida Hussain handed over the detenu to him and asked him for obtaining his remand to the police custody from Assistant Commissioner, Alipur. He and Ghulam Jaffar Constable took the detenu to the residence of Assistant Commissioner at 8-30 p.m. They sent remand papers inside the house through a servant who brought them back duly signed. He then locked up the detenu at Police Station Alipur during the night, and next day i.e. 24th February, 1982 he brought and produced him in Court.

4. Ghulam Shabbir detenu stated that he was arrested by S.1. Muhammad Shafi 22 days before the bailiff visited Police Station Kundal on the night between 22nd/23rd February, 1982. He was kept in the police lock-up there throughout and was tortured by the S.I. Muhammad Aslam. Naib Moharrir, told the bailiff that the keys of the lock-up were with H.C. Ata Muhammad and, therefore, he did not deliver his custody to bailiff. H.C. Ata Muhammad came to the police station next morning, who alongwith Ghulam Jaffar Constable had brought him to the house of D.S.P. Alipur, and under his instructions he was taken to an offficer's house in the evening of 23rd February, 1982 for remand. Later H.C. Allah Ditta locked him up at Police Station Alipur and next day produced him in Court. He was medically examined under the Court's orders by the Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Multan, who had noted four simple blunt weapon injuries on his person.

5. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, Ghulam Shabbir, detenu was set at liberty forthwith and simultaneously notices were issued to Rana Salim Akhtar, D.S.P., Alipur S.I. Fida Hussain, M.H.C. Ata Muhammad, S.I. Muhammad Shafi and Assistant Commissioner, Alipur for committing Contempt of Court. Later, a similar notice was issued to Muhammad Aslam Naib-Moharrir also. All of them filed their explanations in writing denying the allegations.

6. S.I. Muhammad Shafi was found to have left for Karachi five days prior to the visit of bailiff to Police Station Kundal and Zafar Aziz, Assistant Commissioner though he granted remand of the detenu to police custody at odd time at his residence did not know that the police was forging a defence against the habeas corpus petition made in the High Court about Chulam Shabbir's illegal detention, therefore, proceedings against these two respondents were dropped.

7. The remaining respondents namely, Rana Salim Akhtar, D.S.P., Alipur, S.I. Fida Hussain, H.C. Ata Muhammad and Muhammad Aslam, Naib-Moharrir, filed documented detailed replies controverting the allegations levelled by the bailiff in his report and maintained that Ghulam Shabbir detenu was arrested on 2nd February, 1982 in a case F.I.R. No. 13, dated 17th February, 1979, Police Station Kundal under section 54, Cr.P.C., and a report of his arrest was recorded at serial' No. 9, the same day at 5-55 p.m. It wash further stated that Safdar Ali, bailiff visited the police station at 2-10 a.m. (night between 22nd/23rd February, 1982) and signed the detenu's arrest report No. 13 in the Roznamcha. After having verified the entry of arrest he waited at the Police Station for the arrival of S.I. Fida Hussain (almost rediculous) for seeing the relevant Zimni. S.I. Fida Hussain visited the police station at 11 a.m. on 23rd February, 1982 and recorded report No. 14 in the Roznamcha stating that he would obtain the remand of the detenu from a Magistrate and produce the detenu in Court on 24th February, 1982. The S.I. submitted that he had served the Police Department for 20 years and always held the Court in high esteem. Similarly, Rana Salim Akhtar, D.S.P. stated that he had put in 22 years service in the Police Department and had always considered it to be his duty to uphold the dignity of Courts. H.C. Ata Muhammad stated that he had put in 20 years service in the department and had always been respectful to the Courts throughout his service.

8. Having found their explanations as unsatisfactory by way of abundant caution fresh notices under section 4/7 of the Contempt of Courts Act read with Article 204 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan setting forth the substance of allegations therein were served on them on 23rd October, 1982 so that the respondents should get full knowledge of accusations against them and make out their effective defence.

9. On 6th March, 1983, they tendered unqualified apology in writing and placed themselves at the mercy of the Court. The case was adjourned to 28th March, 1983. On that day they made statements admitting all the allegations levelled against them. On 30th March, 1983 they again put in written statements to the following effect:- "After having heard the notice, I have tendered unconditional and unqualified apology and again I hereby show my sincerest regrets. I hereby undertake that I shall be careful in future and shall not repeat any such act. I have profound regards of respect for the Hon'ble Court and I humbly submit to the authority of the Court praying for forgiveness in the matter. I have put in 23 (each respondent mentioned different periods) years unblemished record of service to my credit and have a large family to support."

10. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondent submitted that the unqualified apologies submitted by the respondents have the effect of purging the contemner and as such it should be regarded enough to conclude the proceedings and in the event it was not considered as sufficient then it is a case where a nominal punishment would fully meet the ends of justice. In support of his submission the learned counsel relied on Fakhre Alam v. State P L D 1973 S C 525 and Bilquees Begum v. Lahore Municipal Corporation P L D 1983 Lah.

113. Learned Assistant Advocate-General submitted that it is a case of contempt of Court of gross nature yet he suggested that in view of the fact that the respondents have waived their right to contest, they should be dealt with leniently. He has made a pointed reference to Yusuf Ali Khan v. State P L D 1970 S C 350 wherein guiding principles have been laid down to deal with such like matters.

11. It hardly needs a second thought to reach a conclusion that when the bailiff visited Police Station Kundal at 2-10 a.m. on 23rd February, 1982 under the order of the High Court for recovering Ghulam Shabbir, detenu, he found the detenu present in the police a lock-up, without there being a valid order of a competent Court allowing his detention till 8-30 p.m. on 23rd February, 1982. The whole exercise of obtaining a remand of the detenu admittedly was undertaken after the visit of the bailiff for which there was no legal justification with respondents to do so. They were supposed to hand over the detenu straightaway to the bailiff on the night between 22nd/23rd February, 1982, but they did not do so, rather the respondents on their own showing got busy in completing the papers. The fact that S.I. Fida Hussain, H.C. Ata Muhammad and Muhammad Aslam, Naib-Moharrir got together and brought the detenu to the residence of D.S.P., Alipur and handed him over to H.C. Allah Ditta at 8-00 p.m. on 23rd February, 1982 as admitted by H.C. Allah Ditta in his statement, is significant. It appears that they got together, prepared a plan to make the illegal detention of Ghulam Shabbir to look as legal in consultation with each other and with the blessings of the D.S.P., Rana Salim Akhtar. I am, therefore, convinced that the Zimnis as also the Roznamcha of the Police Station were forged to cover up the illegal detention of Ghulam Shabbir, detenu, in order to defeat the process of the Court and by not handing over the detenu to the bailiff at once, they clearly committed Contempt of Court. Accordingly I hold all of them guilty for the same under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976.

12. All the respondents hold senior ranks and claim to have served for many many years in Police Department. As members of the Police Depart ment, which is part of the machinery set up for the administration of justice, it was the bounden duty of the respondents to comply with the order of the Court rather than to flout it. The long span of their service should have injected greater sense of responsibility in them but it appears to have worked just the reverse. They have committed Contempt of Court of gross nature which deserve to be visited with exemplary punishment. It is of course for the officers on the helm of affairs of the Police Department to see, whether or not, the respondents having such a conduct are fit to be retained for serving the department any more.

13. No doubt that in case where unqualified apology is tendered the Courts always dealt with the contemner leniently, of course, if the apology is found to have been tendered sincerely and without any delay. In the instant case the respondents have tendered their apologies after a year since their appearance in Court and that, too, after they became sure that their defence was likely to fail and they would be convicted.

14. However, in the circumstances of the case, I consider the apologies of the respondents as a mitigating circumstance and, therefore, inflict on them comparatively lighter punishment. Accordingly I sentence all the respondents under section 4 of Contempt of Court Act to imprisonment till rising of the Court each plus fine i.e. Rana Salim Akhtar, D.S.P., Alipur, to a fine of Rs. 1,000 (Rupees one thousand only) or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, S.I. Fida Hussain to a fine of Rs. 800 (Rupees eight hundred only) or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three weeks, H.C. Ata Muhammad and Muhammad Aslam, Naib-Moharrirs (now Assistant Sub-Inspectors) to a fine of Rs. 500 each (Rupees five hundred only) or in default to undergo two weeks' simple imprisonment each. They shall pay the fine by 31st March, 1983. A copy of this judgment shall be sent to the Home Secretary the Government of Punjab for any action he deems fit. S.G.D Contemners sentence