1975 PLP 123 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD GUL, J.‑‑‑Pursuant to the information lodged orally by the learned Attorney‑General, notices were issued to the two respondents herein, namely the Resident Editor and the Printer and Publisher of the Daily Jang, Rawalpindi, to show cause why they should not be committed for contempt for having misreported the proceedings of the Court in relation to evidence of Mufti Rafi‑ud‑Din, Assistant Director, I S. I. who appeared tar witness ; Reference No. I of 1975 (The Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Mr. Abdul. Wali Khan;). Mufti Rafi‑ud-Din was examined in this Court in the above Reference on, 20‑8‑1975 anal Urdu version of his evidence wars published in the issue of die Lang dated 21-8‑1975. The witness in the course of his evidence, had referred, inter alia, to three reports by Colonel Sarwar then posted in London to Director I. S. I. These reports were dated September 14, 28 and October 22, 1971. The witness claimed privilege with regard to certain portions of the a reports which were expunged from the Photo stat copies placed oft t record of the case, In the evidence of this witness there was no reference where after to the evidence of Mr. Rasib, who had earlier appeared as a witness in the Reference. The Urdu version of the evidence of Mufti Rafi‑ud‑Din as printed in the issue of Jang on 21‑8‑1975 however, reads: This was plainly not a correct version of the evidence of the witness. It appears that when the error was noticed, the Management tried to make attends in issue of the newspaper appearing on the 22nd August 1975. Rut instead of clarifying the matter, it made the confusion worse confounded. It appears they did that in a huffy and did not check from the Court's record. The respondents have however, tendered unqualified apology for the mistake that had crept in inadvertently and begged forgiveness of the Court. It appears that the respondents printed the Urdu version, on the basis of the report appearing in the Pakistan Times of 21‑8‑1975 but even so the translation was faulty. They have however holdout an assurance that they would rectify the mistake and would exercise greater care in printing the report of proceedings correctly. The learned Attorney‑General conceded that the error was bona fide and accidental. We share that view. The respondents lost no time to make amends, but in a burry they again fumbled. Every thing happened before the notice was issued to them. In these circumstances we discharge the notices. It may however, be observed that while, the intense desire of the newspapers to serve their readers with the latest stews of events including the proceedings in the Courts in cases of topical "serest, is, quite understandable, nevertheless, it must be clearly understood that if the newspaper undertake to report such proceedings they are under a legal duty to report' the proceedings truly and faithfully, so that no false impression is created in public mind or prejudice is otherwise caused to the parties to the witness in the case. Any infraction of tea rule will be within the clutches of law and the Courts slave generally taken a serious view of it. Notice discharged.