P L D 1953 Baghdad﷓ul﷓Jadid 79 (PLP)

Proceedings for contempt of Court being of a summary character should be sparingly resorted to and that too only when there is substantial contempt. Where the accused insisted that he was in the right and contended that what he had done was within the law he should be punished. FAIZ MUHAMMAD, C. J.‑On the formal motion of S. Ahmad Nawaz Shah petitioner notice was issued to Mr. Waliullah Uhad Editor, Printer and Publisher of the weekly "Kainat" to appear in this Court and show cause why he should not be proceeded against for contempt of Court for publishing in his pap.‑r dated the 28th of September 1953 a misleading report about an order of R, Magistrate, 1st Class, Sadiqabad in a case under section 145, Cr. P. C. Mr. Waliullah Uhad accordingly appeared before me on the 21st of October 1953 and put in a written statement supported by an affidavit. In this statement he has admitted that he is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of the "Kainat" and that the report objected to did appear in the issue of the paper dated the 28th of September. But he contended that in publishing the said report he had no intention of showing disrespect to any Court of law and that read as a whole it did not amount to any undue comments on the Magistrate's order. He further said that the order of the Magistrate had since been set aside by the High Court. With the agreement of Mr. Abdur Rahman and Mr. Farzand Ali Advocates respectively for S. Ahmad Nawaz Shah and Mr. Waliullah Uhad the hearing of the matter was fixed for 27th of October 1953. When it came up for hearing on that date Mr. Abdur Rahman said that he did not wish to lead any evidence because Mr. Waliullah Uhad had admitted the Editorship of the weekly "Kainat" and the publication in it of the report to which exception had been taken. Mr. Farzand Ali also did not wish to lead any evidence in defence. Mr. Abdur Rahman opened his arguments by inviting my attention to the following bold head‑lines of the report in question. Mr. Abdur Rahman contended that these scare head‑lines have a tendency to give to the general public the erroneous impression that the Magistrate had not acted impartially in sealing or attaching the factory named above. I have very carefully read these bead‑lines and do not agree with Mr. Abdur Rahman. Taken by themselves these head‑lines cannot be said to imply any reflection on the impartiality of the Magistrate. The first of these lines contains a simple statement of fact the correctness of which is not open to question. The second line consist of two parts. In the first it is said that the order of the subordinate Court (Magistrate, 1st Class, Sadiqabad) was against law and in the second part that a revision petition had been filed in the High Court against the said order. Taking the first part first it can be said that it contains the opinion of the Editor about the legality of the order of the Magistrate. But if the two parts are read together the first part can be taken to refer to a ground of revision filed in the High Court. It so happens that one of the grounds of revision does say that the order of the Magistrate was against law. This ground is further amplified in the revision petition by reference to the provision of law which the order is said to have contravened. Viewed in this light the second head line also cannot amount to contempt of Court. The effect of head lines within inverted commas was considered by the Lahore and Calcutta High Courts in A I R 1943 Lah. 329 and A I R 1933 Cal.

118. The object of head‑lines in inverted commas is to invite the attention of the newspaper reading public to a statement said to have been made by one or other of the parties to a litigation. Taken by themselves such head‑lines cannot be held to amount to contempt of Court if the position is cleared in the article or the report which follows them. The inverted commas are not generally in vogue in Urdu writing and the purpose which they are intended to serve is achieved by employing heavy type in the bead‑lines. Therefore to appreciate the implications of these head‑lines we must of necessity consider them along with what is given in the body of an article or report. Proceeding further Mr. Abdur Rahman invited my attention to the sentence "Waqia is teran hai" after which follows what according to Mr. Waliullah Uhad, took place in the Court of the Magistrate, 1st Class, Sadiqabad. The counsel contended that this sentence clearly indicates that what follows it is not a faithful report of what took place in the Magistrate's Court but a version of the Editor of "Kainat" about it. This may be and is in fact so. In order however to bring the charge of contempt home to the respondent it is necessary to show that the reporter's version contained something which was either against facts or that it tended in any manner to scandalise the Court. All that Mr. Abdur Rahman was able to point out in this connection was that S. Ahmad Nawaz Shah applicant in proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. had been described in the report as "Khazanchi Muslim League"' whereas he bad moved the Court in his personal capacity and not as an office‑bearer of a political organi zation i.e., the Muslim League which is the party in power in the State. Mr. Abdur Rahmam contended that by using the words "Khazanchi Muslim League" in his report Mr. Waliullah Uhad had insinuated that the Magistrate's action had been actuated by consideration of the position of S. Ahmad Nawaz Shah in the Muslim League. In view of the fact that the weekly "Kainat" is admittedly an Organ of parties opposed to the Muslim League in the State, the insinuation suggested by the counsel can be read in the report. Mr. Farzand Ali has tried to meet this point by saying that the object of using the words "Khazanchi Muslim League", with the name of S. Ahmad Nawaz Shah was just to show who the gentleman was and that in any case Mr. Waliullah Uhad had ho intention to cast aspersions on the Magistrate. I am afraid I cannot agree with Mr. Farzand Ali's explanation of the matter. In my opinion there was absolutely no need to describe S. Ahmad Nawaz Shah as the treasurer of the Muslim League, unless he had instituted proceedings under section 145 Cr. P. C. in that capacity. Besides it must also be borne in mind that the object motive or intention with which a reporter of the proceedings of a Court of law uses particular words is not material as far as action for contempt of Court is concerned. In such an action what the Court has to see is the effect of the words used on the mind of those who read them. There is a large number of reported rulings in support of this view and Mr. Abdur Rahmainl referred to many of them in his arguments. For the sake of, brevity I will mention only a few of them. These are 43 Cr. L J 582, 40 Cr. L J 533 and 1943 Lah. 206 (A I R). Therefore unnecessary use of the words "Khazanchi Muslim League" in the report objected to does, in my opinion, give an impression to its reader that in passing the order against which revision had been filed in the High Court the Magistrate had been influenced by position which S. Ahmad Nawaz Shah held in Muslim League organization. However I would have treated this also as contempt of Court in a technical sense of the expression and‑dealt with it leniently if Mr. Waliullah Uhad had acknowledged his mistake and tendered an unconditional apology for it. Proceeding further in his report Mr. Waliullah Uhad, so to say, let the cat completely out of bag. The concluding para. of his report reads as follows :‑ I am unable to see the relevancy of this last para. of the report to proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. in the Court of the Magistrate at Sadiqabad. Mr. Farzand Ali has tried to explain this part of the report also by saying that it was intended merely to introduce Sardar Karim Hayat to the general public. He further said that since the facts true or otherwise stated in this para. of the report are not relevant to the proceedings in the Court of Magistrate at Sadiqabad they should be simply ignored. I wish I could do so. I cannot however agree with Mr. Farzand Ali that the object of this last para of the report was as innocent as to introduce Mr. Karim Hayat to the general public. Nor can I accept the position that since what is given in it is irrelevant to proceedings in the Magistrate's Court, it should be simply ignored. After reading and re‑reading the said para. the impression that one gathers is that it was put in the report with the purpose and intention of creating an impression chat the action taken by the Magistrate against Mr. Karim Hayat was due to the latter having appeared as a witness against A. M. Makhdoomzada Syed Hassan Mahmood in the enquiry said to be pending against him. On no other hypothesis can this last para. be explained. This being the position I have no alter native but to hold that Mr. Waliullah Uhad was guilty of contempt of Court. His contention that the order of the Magistrate under, section 145, Cr. P. C. had been set aside by the High Court in revision does not help him. Orders of the subordinate Courts are in many cases set aside by the High Court in appeal or revision. But it does not mean that the subordinate Magistrates had acted in bad faith or had shown partiality to one or other of the parties in all such cases. The last para. of the report as it staeds tended also to influence the High Court Judge seized of the matter on the revision side. For the purpose of the offence of contempt of Court it is quit immaterial whether the mind of the Judge concerned was actually prejudiced or not. It is enough that the writing had a tendency to produce the unwholesome impression. Mr. Farzand Ali also invited my attention to a number of rul ing of various High Courts in which it is laid down that proceed ings for contempt of Court being of a summary character should be sparingly resorted to and that too only when there is substantial contempt. More important among these ruling, are A I R 1931 Cal. 252, 1939 Mad. 257 and 1943 Lah.

329. I am in respectful agreement with the learned Judges responsible for these rulings as far as the principle laid down by them is concerned. But I maintain that open or veiled attacks directed against the impartiality of a Court of law do amount to substantial contempt. In view of all that has been said above I hold Mr. Waliullah Uhad guilty of the offence of contempt both of the Court of Magistrate, 1st Class, Sadiqabad and this Court. Despite the seriousness of the offence I would have let off Mr. Waliullah Uhad with a warning but I think this will not produce the desired effect upon him, particularly when he has not tendered any apology and has considered it proper to contest these proceedings. In a Bombay ruling (A I R 1942 Bom. 86) Mr. Justice Kania held that where the accused insisted that he was in the right and contended that what he had done was within the law he should be punished. I fully endorse this view. Therefore finding Mr. Waliullah Uhad guilty of the offence of contempt of Court I sentence him to a fine of Rs.

100. Fine to be paid within three days of the announcement of this order. A.H. Respondent held guilty of contempt.