2004 P Cr (PLP)

MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, C.J.‑‑‑

This is an application moved by the applicant, Muhammad Ibrahim, for initiating contempt of Court proceedings against the respondent, Muhammad Afsar Khan. In the application it is alleged that the applicant filed a revision petition before the Custodian of Evacuee Property for the cancellation of some illegal allotment made in the name of respondent. The revision petition was dismissed. The applicant then filed a writ petition in the High Court which was also dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the applicant filed an appeal before this Court, with the leave of the Court, which was accepted on 15‑6‑2000, with the direction to the Custodian which is reproduced, as mentioned in para. No.14 of the aforesaid judgment: "14. therefore, we accept the appeal filed by Muhammad Ibrahim C.A. No. 147 of 1999 and set aside the judgment of the High Court. For the same reasons writ petition filed by the appellant herein is accepted and the order passed by the learned Custodian of Evacuee Property on 1st August, 1997, is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. A direction is issued to the learned Custodian to pass an order of cancellation of allotment made in favour of Muhammad Afsar Khan and also to cancel the Proprietary Rights Transfer Order issued in his favour."

2. The applicant moved an application to the Custodian of Evacuee Property for implementation of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, which was accepted on 8‑8‑2000, by canceling the allotment and Proprietary Rights Transfer Order issued in favour of the respondent. Thereafter the applicant applied to the Rehabilitation Authorities, Poonch for allotment of the land in question in compliance with the judgment of this Court and finally the land in dispute was allotted to the applicant on 30‑9‑2000 by the A.R.C., Poonch. The copy of the allotment permit issued by the A.R.C., Poonch in favour of the applicant on 30‑9‑2000 is duly attached with the application. It is further alleged that the respondent, who is an Advocate of the Supreme Court, submitted an application to the Speaker of AJ&K Legislative Assembly on 22‑11‑2000, Annexure "A‑4", alleging therein that the Supreme Court had acted and pronounced the judgment under the influence of the Government. The applicant in his application has reiterated paras. Nos.4 and 5 of the application written by the respondent which may usefully be reproduced below: ‑‑

3. According to the applicant, in the above stated two paras, the respondent has made derogatory remarks against the highest Court of the A country and has lowered down its prestige, which renders the respondent liable to be punished for committing the contempt of Court.

4. The respondent herein was provided the opportunity to file his objections. In the objections filed by the respondent, he has denied the allegations made against him and submitted that the allegations are incredibly devoid of sense as to why a practicing Advocate could afford to commit an offence of this nature of disregarding the prestigious status of the highest forum of the country. However, para. No.3 of the application, filed by the respondent before the Speaker Legislative Assembly, has been admitted by the respondent. The respondent further stated in his objections that the contents shown to be written by me in Urdu are fake, false and are not in my handwriting. He stated that he, being an Advocate, never thinks to make any such remarks which may culminate to disregard the status of this Court.

5. It is astonishing to note that paras. Nos.3, 4 and 5 of the alleged application, filed by the respondent, are typed in similar manner and the respondent in his objections has admitted the correctness of allegations made in para. No.3 only but has refuted the allegations mentioned in paras. Nos.4 and 5 of the said application. When it is categorically admitted by the respondent that para. No.3 is correct, then how can he deny paras. Nos.4 and 5 of the same application which are typed therein and are derogatory and amounting to, lower down the dignity of the highest Court of the country.

6. On 9‑10‑2002, after going through the application moved by the applicant and comments filed by the respondent, a regular notice was issued to respondent to file his objections as to why he should not be punished for committing the contempt of Court. The parties were directed to lead their evidence.

7. In support of application, Muhammad Ibrahim, applicant, produced Muhammad Akram Khan and Muhammad Ishaque as his witnesses who fully supported the case of Muhammad Ibrahim. The respondent‑contemner, Muhammad Afsar Khan, also got his statement recorded on 8‑10‑2003 in which he did not deny the contents of application moved by him to Speaker Legislative Assembly.

8. We have ourselves examined the signatures on the respondent on the application Annexure "A‑4", the objections filed by the respondent on 6‑6‑2002, the affidavit filed by him on 6‑6‑2002 and his signatures on the statement recorded before this Court on 8‑10‑2003 spreading over nine pages. We are fully convinced with the signatures on the application Annexure "A‑4", the objections filed by the respondent on 6‑6‑2002, the affidavit filed by him on 6‑6‑2002 and his signatures on the statement recorded before this Court on 8‑10‑2003, that the same are similar in nature and are of the respondent. The respondent during the proceedings on 6‑10‑2003 moved an, application tendering unconditional apology.

9. We have given our due consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant and the respondent and have carefully examined the record. The petitioner has successfully proved the case of committing contempt of Court of this Court by the respondent‑contemner by moving an application to the Speaker AJ&K Legislative Assembly Annexure "A‑4". The contents of paras. Nos.4 and 5 of the said application are clearly contemptuous and amounting to lower down the dignity of this Court. Although the respondent has denied paras. Nos.4 and 5 of the said application but he has admitted para. No.3 of the same. It may be stated that all these paras. are typed in a similar manner. The signatures of the respondent are affixed on this application as Exh.P.A./8. The signatures on the application clearly tally with the signatures of respondent on the objections filed by him on 6‑6‑2002, the affidavit filed by him on 6‑6‑2002 and his signatures on the statement recorded before this Court on 8‑10‑2003 spreading over nine pages. Thus, it is proved beyond any manner of doubt that the application Annexure "A‑4" has been presented to the Speaker AJ&K Legislative Assembly by the respondent. The oral evidence of the petitioner corroborates the version of the petitioner, whereas the respondent contemner, has not specifically denied the derogatory and contemptuous paras. Nos.4 and 5 of the aforesaid application specifically. During the proceedings, when the respondent realized that a case has been made out against him for committing contempt of this Court, he moved an application for tendering unconditional apology.

10. After taking into consideration the overall circumstances of the case and the fact that the respondent‑contemner is an old person and is an advocate of this Court and has also tendered unconditional apology, therefore, we take a lenient view in awarding the sentence to him. After finding the respondent‑contemner guilty of contempt of this Court, we award him the sentence till rising of the Court and impose a fine o: Rs.5,000 upon him which shall be paid to the Registrar of this Court otherwise he shall be sent to face the simple imprisonment of two weeks. H.B.T./61/SC(AJ&K) Application allowed.