2000 PLP 1969 (SCMR)

IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, C.J.

This appeal arises out of an application moved by Shahid Orakzai, praying for initiating de novo proceedings in respect of acts of rowdyism in the Supreme Court building on the ground that the Bench which conducted the trial was not properly constituted as it was not headed by a Chief Justice. It also challenges the judgment dated 14-5-1999, passed by a three-member Bench of this Court, whereby the learned Bench acquitted the respondents/contemners before it on the ground that the allegation against them of committing contempt of this Court by raising slogans against the then Hon'ble Chief Justice and the Judiciary, was not proved beyond doubt.

2. Brief facts are that on 28th November, 1997, a mob comprising people hailing from different areas of the country, who were allegedly workers of Pakistan Muslim League (N) including some MNAs and MPAs of the ruling party, stormed the Supretr

4. Court Building, Islamabad during Court proceedings and having forced their entry into the Court premises, raised slogans against the then learned Chief Justice of Pakistan.

3. Vide our Short Order dated 28-9-2000, we disposed of the appeal in the following terms:

"For detailed reasons to be recorded later, we intend to dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 162 of 1999 through this Short Order. The appellant had sought initiation of contempt proceedings de novo in respect of an incident of rowdyism which had taken place on 28-11-1997 in the Supreme Court premises. "

2. A Bench of this Court vide order dated 14-6-1999 observed that in view of the Full Bench judgment in Muhammad Ikram Ch. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1998 SC 103), the judgment rendered by a Bench of this Court on 14-5-1999 in the contempt case could not be reviewed through a criminal original application filed by Mr. Shahid Orakzai on the grounds mentioned in the application. However, the application was converted into appeal and notices were issued to the alleged contemners as well as Pakistan Muslim League (N) (hereinafter referred to as P.M.L.(N) through Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, its President, respondent No. 1 and Chief Commissioner, Islamabad. Notice was also issued to the learned Attorney-General to assist the Court. "

3. The preliminary objection, raised by Mr. Muhammad Ali Sayeed learned Senior ASC for respondent No. 1, as to the maintainability of Appeal against an order of acquittal is of no consequence in the facts and circumstances of this case, in that, the impugned decision is based on the erroneous assumption that contempt proceedings being criminal proceedings should be conducted in the same manner as other criminal proceedings and the rules of such criminal proceedings should also apply. This Court has repeatedly held that contempt proceedings are sui generis in nature; partaking of some of the elements of both civil and criminal proceedings but constituting neither. Clearly, there is no fixed formula for contempt proceedings and that technical accuracies are not required nor this Court is bound by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or by the technicalities of ordinary criminal proceedings. Refer Masroor Ahsan v. Ardeshir Cowasjee (PLD 1998 SC 823 at 878-B); Saadat Khialy v. The State (PLD 1962 SC 457 at 463-H); Qadiruddin v. Ghulam Yaqoob Bandey (1977 SCMR 477 at 478-A); Muhammad Ibrahim v. Syed Ahmad (PLD 2000 SC 71); The State v. Mujibur Rehman Shami (PLD 1973 Lahore 1) and State v. Abdur Rashid Tarkabagish (PLD 1959 Dacca 252 at 254-A). This circumstance alone warrants re-examination/suo Motu review of the evidence on record. "

4. It would be advantageous to refer to the relevant portion of the order-sheet dated 28-11-1997 in Criminal Original Petitions Nos.29 and 32 of 1997 and Constitutional Petitions Nos. 27, 31 and 32 of 1997, which reads thus:

"While the proceedings were in progress, one of the contemners came forward and whispered something in the ear of Mr. S.M. Zafar. Mr. S.M. Zafar told him that since he was not his Advocate, he could not make request on his behalf. Meanwhile, Raja Muhammad Akram got up and. came to the rostrum and stated that he was representing Khawaja Muhammad Asif and requested for leave of his client's absence on the ground that he had to attend some very important work. He was allowed to go. A little later a big commotion was heard as if there was riot outside the Court room and slogans were being raised. It appeared that a big mob wanted to rush into the Court room. In fact a few persons did succeed in doing so and one of them informed that the judges should rise and go away as fully charged mob behind him was forcing entry into the Court room to take the Chief Justice into custody. This fact was supported by the persistent commotion and high-pitched slogans of the persons who were in the process of raiding the Court room. In such circumstances there was no other alternative for the Court, but to adjourn the proceedings and the Judges rose from the Court room and retired. Even outside there was flurry of activities as the people were running here and there and some policemen escorted the Judges to the Chamber of the Chief Justice. " "Three of us (Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, Ch. Muhammad Arif and Munir A. Sheikh, JJ.) are also signatories to the above order. "

5. Our learned brother Abdur Rehman Khan, J. in his inquiry report dated 18-2-1998, inter alia observed: (i) "As the action of those individuals who forced their entry into the Court premises and raised slogans against the judiciary prima facie amounts to gross contempt of this Court the Hon'ble Chief Justice may constitute a Bench of the Court to initiate contempt proceedings for the outrageous incident of 28-11-1997 ....Once the concerned persons are identified, the Court can then issue notice to them and then take further action under Article 204 of the Constitution and the applicable law

" "

6. The then Chief Justice constituted a three-member Bench to Identify the persons involved in the said incident and to initiate contempt proceedings as recommended in paragraph C(i) of the inquiry report. Notices were accordingly issued. "

7. In view of the material on record including the video cassettes the three-member Bench of this Court was of the view that the following persons were prima facie involved in or had aided or abetted or facilitated the acts of rowdyism:--

1. M.N. A., Tariq Aziz.

2. M.N.A., Mian Muhammad Munir.

3. M.P.A., Ch. Tanwir Ahmed Khan.

4. M . P. A. , Akhtar Rasool.

5. Shahbaz Goshi.

6. Mushtaq Ali Tahir Kheli.

7. Akhtar Mahmood.

8. M.P.A., Sardar Muhammad Naseem Khan.

9. Babar Awan, M.S.F. Divisional President.

10. Ali Abbas, General Secretary, Labour Wing, Rawalpindi.

11. Anjum Iqbal, Rawalpindi.

12. Muhammad Farooq, Divisional General Secretary, Youth Wing, Rawalpindi.

13. Muhammad Naseem, Joint Secretary, M.S.F. Labour Wing, Rawalpindi.

14. Tanvir Akhtar, General Secretary, Muslim League Youth Wing, Rawalpindi.

15. Raja Zafar Iqbal, Joint Secretary, Muslim League Labour Wing, Rawalpindi.

16. Malik Muhammad Munawar, General Secretary, Muslim League, Rawalpindi.

17. Tariq Saleem Lone, I.-G.P., Islamabad.

18. Altaf Hussain, S.S.P., Islamabad.

19. Bashir Ahmad Nasir, A.S.P., Islamabad.

20. D.S.P. Liaqat Ali.

21. D.S.P. Muhammad Ashiq Farooqui.

22. Inspector Jamil Ahmad Hashmi (S.H.O., P.S. Sectt.), Islamabad.

23. Inspector Mussarrat Khan (S.H.O., Bharakau).

24. Abid Ali (A.D.C. General and Acting D.C.).

25. Muhammad Ali, Assistant Commissioner.

26. Iftikhar Ali Shalwani, Assistant Commissioner. Note; (Persons at Nos.9 to 16 are also accused in Crime No. 229 of 1997 of P.S. Secretariat, Islamabad.) "

8. In consequence, the learned Bench vide its order dated 3-7-1998 directed issuance of show-cause notices to the above 26 persons calling upon them to explain the reasons why action should not be taken against them for committing contempt of this Court. "

9. After receiving replies from all concerned and apologies tendered by some of the respondents and hearing the arguments of the respondents as also the learned Deputy Attorney-General the learned Bench on 1-3-1998 passed the following order: (a) "Further proceedings against the following respondents are postponed till the decision of the criminal case (F.I.R. No.229197 dated 28-11-1997 of P.S: Secretariat, Islamabad):--

1. Babar Awan, M.S.F. Divisional President.

2. Ali Abbas, General Secretary, Labour Wing, Rawalpindi.

3. Anjum Iqbal, Rawalpindi.

4. Muhammad Farooq, Divisional General Secretary, Youth Wing, Rawalpindi.

5. Muhammad Naseem, Joint Secretary, M.S.F. Labour Wing, Rawalpindi.

6. Tanvir Akhtar, General Secretary, Muslim League Youth Wing, Rawalpindi.

7. Raja Zafar Iqbaf, Joint Secretary, Muslim League Labour Wing, Rawalpindi.

8. Malik Muhammad Munawar, General Secretary, Muslim League, Rawalpindi. (These respondents are respondents Nos.9 to 16). (b) "The apologies tendered by the official respondents i.e. the executive and police officers are accepted but with a stern warning to each one of them, with more emphasis as against the superior officers, to be very careful in future, fully alive to their responsibilities with no lapse on their part so that incidents of like nature are not allowed to recur and no untoward action takes place which affects the dignity, order or decorum of the Courts or which are intended to bring the authority of the Courts into disrespect or disrepute, which action could be avoided by proper, responsible and timely action on their part. With this warning, show-cause notices issued to the following respondents are discharged: 1. "Tariq Saleem Lone, I.-G.P., Islamabad.

2. Altaf Hussain, SSP, Islamabad.

3. Bashir Ahmad Nasir, A.S. P., Islamabad.

4. D.S.P. Liaqat Ali.

5. D.S.P. Muhammad Ashiq Farooqui.

6. Inspector Jamil Ahmad Hashmi (S.H.O., P.S. Sectt.), Islamabad.

7. Inspector Mussarrat Khan (S.H.O. Bharakau).

8. Abid Ali (A.D.C. General and Acting D.C.).

9. Muhammad Ali, Assistant Commissioner.

10. Iftikhar Ali Shalwani, Assistant Commissioner. (These are respondents Nos. 17 to 26). (c) "Show-cause notice issued to respondent. No. 6 Mushtaq Ali Tahirkheli is withdrawn. (d) Charges for committing contempt of this Court are framed against the against the following;

1. Tariq Aziz son of Mian Abdul Aziz, M.N. A. (respondent No. 1).

2. Mian Muhammad Munir son of Haji Din Muhammad, M.N.A. (respondent No. 2). .

3. Ch. Tanvir Ahmed Khan son of Ch. Wilayat Ali Khan, M.P.A. (Punjab) (respondent No. 3).

4. Akhtar Rasool son of Dr. Ghulam Rasool, M.P.A. (Punjab) (respondent No. 4);

5. Akhtar Mahmood son of Haji Noor-ud-Din, MPA (Punjab) (respondent No. 7);

6. Shahbaz Goshi son of Ch. Siraj Din, resident of B-313, Gali No. 15, Naya Mohallah, Rawalpindi.

7. Sardar Muhammad Naseem Khan son of Sardar Muhammad Zaman Khan, M. P. A. (Punjab) (respondent No. 8). "Pro forma of-the charge framed in respect of each contemner is in the following terms:- "You

(name)

son of

(name of father)

were a part of the crowd/people who had gathered in and around the Supreme Court of Pakistan building, Islamabad in the morning of 28' November, 1997 and were involved in acts of rowdyism including raising slogans and display of banners against the judiciary with the intention of bringing the authority of this Court into disrespect or disrepute and/or to lower its authority and/or to disturb the order or decorum of the Court, and by your actions you have committed contempt of this Court and rendered yourself liable to punishment under Article 204 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan read with sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976."

10. It may be noticed that during the inquiry proceedings statements of 53 witnesses were recorded and during the trial the testimony of 21 witnesses was brought on record." "l

1. The learned Bench vide paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment observed: "From the evidence of 21 witnesses recorded before us and from the cassettes recording the events of 28-11-1997 from the cameras of the closed circuit system of this Court we are convinced that a crowd/mob had gathered on that date outside the Court, which according to the witnesses was 2000/3000 strong and was raising objectionable slogans against the judiciary and also flying banners and placards with objectionable writings against the judiciary. A sizeable number got inside by scaling over and by forcing open the outer gate and many forced themselves inside the Court building and quite a few of them went up to the first floor and were found loitering in the lobby/foyer next to Court Room No.

1. Slogans and banners were raised inside the building also." "It follows that it was not a case of the situation building up on the spur of the moment and the crowd getting excited and forcing their way inside. A number of buses had brought people to the Court. It appears from, the evidence that -the action of that day was planned and the purpose was to disturb the Court which was conducting contempt proceedings at that time

" "

12. The admitted position is that respondents Nos. 2 to 8 were charged when the learned Bench considered that a prima facie case against them has been made out. This being so, the onus was upon them to establish their innocence. It is well-settled that a contempt case in the matter of placing the onus is totally different from a case under the criminal law, which presumes innocence of the accused and places the burden on the prosecution to establish the charge against him beyond any reasonable doubt. Whereas in a contempt case the onus is entirely upon the person charged to prove his innocence. The same view was taken by a seven-member Bench of this Court in Masroor Ahsan v. Ardeshir Cowasjee (PLD 1998 SC 823). This Court also held in State v. Khalid Masood (PLD 1996 SC 42 at 66), that, `the rule of criminal jurisprudence that if two views on the same evidence are plausibly possible, the one favouring the persons standing trial should be preferred over the one against him, cannot be pressed into service in contempt proceedings as the same are not criminal proceedings stricto senso but are sui generis in nature partaking of some of the elements of both civil and criminal proceedings' but constituting neither. This principle was also reiterated in Masroor Ahsan (supra), at page 879, Placitum-C. "

13. Viewed in the context of the well-established law relating to power of committal for contempt, we say with utmost respect that it is difficult to sustain the findings recorded by the learned Members of the Bench to the effect that the respondents are entitled to acquittal L under the law on the ground that it could not be said that the case against any of them had been established beyond reasonable doubt despite reaching the conclusion that the action of the mob/crowd amounted to most flagrant type of contempt of this Court. " " 14.. We have minutely gone, through the material available on record, which includes the testimony of P.Ws., video cassettes, photographs as also the photographs published in `The Nation' and `The News' available at pages 7--13, Part II of the Paper Book, identifying some of the accused; Exhibit P-8/2 - which is a cutting from daily `The Nation' under the caption `Jefag' at page 15 of Part II above; Exhibit P-8/3, which is a news item titled `Setting the Record Straight' at page 16 of Part II above; Exhibit 30/ 1; which is the statement of Abdul Wadood .Qureshi, journalist Witness No. 30, available at pages 49--54, Part II above; Exhibit 32/1, which is a news item under the heading `Foul Mouthed Rowdies Storm Supreme Court,. Judges Retreat' available at page 57 of Part II.; Exhibit 33/2, which is a news item under the caption 'Mob Attacks Court, Halting PM's Trial' available at page 61 of Part II; Exhibit 34/3, a news item published in `The News' under the title `C:J. Seeks Army's Protection as Mob Storms SC' available at pages 69-70 of Part II; Exhibit 34/4 a news item published in `Dawn' under the title 'Rowdyism at SC Disrupts Hearing' available at pages 71-72 of Part II; Exhibit 34/5 which is a news item published in daily `Ummat.' Karachi, at page 73 of Part II.". , "

15. Having heard the arguments on behalf of the parties we have come I to the conclusion that respondents Tariq Aziz, Mian Muhammad Munir, Ch. Tanvir Ahmed Khan, Akhtar Rasool, Akhtar I Mahmood, Shahbaz Goshi and Sardar Muhammad Naseem Khai, who were a part of the crowd/people who had gathered in anu around this Court in the morning of 28th November, 1997, were involved in acts of ,rowdyism including raising slogans and display of banners against the judiciary with the intention of bringing the authority of this Court into disrespect/disrepute and/or to lower its authority and/or to disturb the order or decorum of the Court, anti by their actions they have committed contempt of this Court and rendered themselves liable to punishment under Article 204 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976." "

16. The learned three-member Bench rightly postponed further proceedings against some of the respondents/miscreants till the decision of criminal case (F.I.R. No. 229 of 1997 dated 28-11-1997) registered at Police Station, Secretariat, Islamabad." "

17. We find that without substantial compliance of section 7 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 no proceedings for contempt can be initiated against PML (N) or Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif or their other leaders allegedly involved in the act of rowdyism. The matter requires a thorough probe which course of action was not resorted to earlier. The ends of justice would be fully met if further proceedings against respondent No. l are also deferred till a thorough investigation is made by the Investigating Agency concerned as to the culpability or otherwise of respondent No. l as also any other person who may be found so involved. The Registrar of this Court shall supply a print of video film prepared by B.B.C. and of the film prepared by the Closed Circuit System installed in the Supreme Court premises to the Inspector-General of Police, Islamabad, who shall entrust the investigation to a senior police officer, not below the rank of Superintendent of Police. The Investigating Agency shall complete the investigation within a period of four months from the receipt of copy of this order so as to identify, the miscreants involved in the incident and thereafter proceed in accordance with law

"

18. Mr. Javed Akram, the then Chief Commissioner, Islamabad to whom notice was also-issued was summoned by this Court for assistance. No further action is called for to his extent." "

19. As regards the application moved by the learned. Attorney-General for production of additional evidence, it is well settled that no hard and fast rules can be laid down to define or limit the exercise of discretion and the powers conferred on a Court of appeal. This Court has a wide discretion in such matters, which must be exercised judiciously depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The Appellate Court has always the power to call for the additional evidence under the provisions of sections 375, 4281 and 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as also under Rule 27 Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure. Clearly, if there apprehension of justice failing by an erroneous acquittal or an erroneous conviction, the Court would be justified in allowing additional evidence at that stage, The discretionary power vesting in this Court in that regard can be invoked at any stage of the proceedings and under exceptional circumstances any witness can be examined or a witness already examined can be recalled for further examination if' so required in aid of justice. As we have already directed a thorough investigation into the matter vide paragraph 17 above, therefore, there is no need in these proceedings to record any additional evidence. The applications stand disposed of accordingly." "

20. We have also considered the question of tendering "unqualified" apologies on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 to 8 at this stage. It is settled law that tendering of unqualified apology amounts to admission of the charge. We find that the respondents were not sincere in tendering apologies in that the learned counsel reiterated that the unqualified apologies tendered by their clients are in the alternative and without prejudice to the submissions made by them on merits. We are afraid such apologies do not qualify for acceptance in the light of the well-settled principles laid down by the Superior Courts in this behalf Le. (a) the apology must be offered at the earliest stage of the contempt proceedings and may not be postponed till fag-end of the proceedings; (b) the apology must be unconditional, unreserved and unqualified; (c) the apology should not only appear but must also satisfactorily represent sincere and genuine remorse and should not be half-hearted or mere I formality; and (d) the contemner should not endeavour to justify his conduct. Here, the respondents had specifically disputed the charges levelled against them, had unequivocally pleaded their innocence and had endeavoured to justify their conduct even at the fag-end of the proceedings here. Therefore, their apologies are not accepted." "

21. In view of the above circumstances, we find that the respondents, namely, Tariq Aziz, Mian Muhammad Munir, Ch. Tanvir Ahmed Khan, Akhtar Rasool, Akhtar Mahmood, Shahbaz Goshi and Sardar Muhammad Naseem Khan, are guilty of committing contempt of this Court. We accordingly convict them under Article 204 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan read with sections 3 and 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 and sentence them to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each and a fine of Rs.5,000 each or in default thereof to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of one month."

4. We have heard Messrs Sardar Muhammad Ishaq Khan and M. Nawaz Kasuri, learned counsel for the respondents herein as well as Mr. Muhammad Ali Sayeed, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court representing PML (N), the learned Attorney-General for Pakistan and the learned Deputy Attorney-General as also Shahid Orakzai and his counsel Mr. Muhammad Ikram Chaudhary and carefully examined the voluminous material on record.

5. Mr. Muhammad Ali Sayeed, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the appeal contending that vide order dated 14-6-1999, a five-member Bench of this Court had held that the order of three-member Bench could not be reviewed through Criminal Original Petition filed by Shahid Orakzai on any ground mentioned therein or on any other ground but converted the said petition into an appeal without giving any reasons with the result that the respondents, who had been acquitted after a prolonged trial, were subjected to same agony- all over again. He next contended that under Article 185(2) of the Constitution, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree, final order or sentence of a High Court

"(a) if the High Court has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death or to transportation for life or imprisonment for life; or, on revision, has enhanced a sentence to a sentence as aforesaid; or (b) if the High Court has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any Court subordinate to it and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him as aforesaid; (c) if the High Court has imposed any punishment on any person for contempt of the High Court; or (d) if the amount or value of the subject-matter of the dispute in the Court of first instance was, and also in dispute in appeal is, not less than fifty thousand rupees or, such other sum as may be specified in that behalf by Act of [Masjlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] and the judgment, decree or final order appealed from has varied or set aside the judgment, decree or final order of the Court immediately below; or (e) if the judgment, decree or final order involves directly or indirectly some claim or question respecting property of the like amount or value and the judgment, decree or final order appealed from has varied or set aside the judgment, decree or final order of the Court immediately below; or (f) if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution." Clause (3) thereof envisages that an appeal to the Supreme Court from a judgment, decree, order or sentence of a High Court in a case to which clause (2) does not apply shall lie only if the Supreme Court grants leave to appeal and third category of appeal to the Supreme Court is envisaged by section 10 (2-A) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, therefore, there was no precedent whatsoever for conversion of a Criminal Original Petition into an appeal. He argued that an appeal falling in the last category can only be filed by an aggrieved person and no one else. According to him, an appeal under section 10 (2-A) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 is in the nature of Intra-Court Appeal and lies only "to a larger Bench consisting of all the available remaining Judges of the Court within the country", as such the order dated 14-6-1999 suffers from jurisdictional error. He further argued that right of appeal is creation of statute and no Court can suo motu create a new right of appeal. The precise submission was that this Court was not seized of any appeal at all inasmuch as no appeal was filed. He also contended that even amended section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 does not provide an appeal against an order of acquittal rather the said section provides an appeal only against an order of conviction.

6. In reply to the preliminary objections raised by Mr. Muhammad Ali Sayeed, the learned Deputy Attorney-General submitted that the proceedings in contempt are not in the nature of civil or criminal proceedings stricto senso and that the Court in such cases is entitled to devise such procedure which is not in violation of any law or principle of natural justice. He further contended that under section 10(2-A) as amended a. direct appeal lies against an original order. As such the five-member Bench headed by the then Chief Justice lawfully converted the Criminal Original Petition into an appeal vide order dated 14-6-1999 and directed issuance of notices. He next contended that it is admitted proposition of law that the matter of contempt is between the Court and the contemner alone, therefore, the Court may act suo mote or act upon an information or initiate proceedings upon an application. His precise submission was that even if it is presumed that the present appeal is technically not maintainable, this Court has Constitutional and inherent jurisdiction and power to review the case suo motu as it is a matter of upholding and safeguarding the dignity and honour of this Court which must be- preserved. Shahid Orakzai submitted that this Court has always had the jurisdiction to review the orders passed by it in exercise of its original jurisdiction.

7. We are inclined to the view that the order passed by the five- member Bench of this Court converting the Criminal Original Petition filed by Shahid Orakzai into appeal does not in any way preclude the respondents from questioning the maintainability of the appeal. Clearly, the order dated 14-6-1999, to the extent of conversion into appeal, was subject to all just exceptions. It is true that the matter could not be reviewed on a Criminal Original Petition but as rightly conceded by Mr. Muhammad Ali Sayeed this Court is not precluded from recalling its earlier order by taking suo motu action on coming to know that some miscarriage of justice had occurred due to the Court having proceeded on wrong premises. Refer Fida Hussain v. Secretary, Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs Division (PLD 1995 SC 701). Further, the learned counsel for the parties, rightly stated that under Article 187(1) of the Constitution, this Court is empowered to issue such directions, orders, or decrees as may be necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter pending before it. Here, the error being patent on record, this is a fit case where suo motu notices could have been issue to the respondents, who had secured an acquittal from the learned three member Bench of this Court as a result of the abovementioned error. Refer The State v. Muhammad Nawaz (PLD 1966 SC 481).

8. The principles laid down in Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamaraz Khan (PLD 1985 SC 11), for interference with an order of acquittal in the light of well-known principles of re-appraisement of evidence are not attracted in this cause as it does not arise out of acquittal of the accused under ordinary criminal trial, which is based on the initial presumption that till found guilty, the accused is innocent and that benefit of every reasonable doubt should be extended to the accused. In contempt matters, as stated in the preceding paragraphs, the onus is on the contemner himself to prove his innocence. We would not have interfered with the acquittal merely because on reappraisal of evidence a different view from that of the learned three member Bench acquitting the accused, could reasonably be possible. However, contempt matters stand on a different footing, in that in such matters while exercizng suo mote review jurisdiction this Court is competent to assess the gravity of the offence committed by an accused/contemner and if it is satisfied that contempt of Court has in fact been committed, it can proceed to punish the contemner in accordance with law.

9. As observed by us in the Short Order reproduced above, the preliminary objection, raised by Mr. Muhammad Ali Sayeed, as to the maintainability of appeal against an order of acquittal is of no consequence in the facts and circumstances of this case, in that, the impugned decision is based on the erroneous assumption that contempt proceedings being criminal proceedings should be conducted in the same manner as other criminal proceedings and the rules of such criminal proceedings should also apply. Criminal Original Petition as converted into Intra-Court Appeal, was initially admitted to regular hearing by a five-member Bench and later heard by all the remaining available Judges of the Court, therefore, irregularity if any, stood cured. At the time of re-hearing of the above appeal, it was heard by all the remaining available Judges (five at that time minus Abdul Rehman Khan, J.). This being a part heard case, the matter is now being disposed of by the same Bench. Be that as it may, the present appeal is since being treated as Suo Motu Review Petition, the above objection loses significance: As to the objection that reliance could not be placed upon the statements recorded in the absence of the accused/respondents without any cross-examination, suffice it to say, that under subsection (3) of section 7 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, the first step which the Court is required to take is to hold an inquiry. During the inquiry proceedings it is not necessary to provide an opportunity to the accused/respondent to cross-examine the witnesses. However, when evidence is recorded during the trial, the accused/respondents are entitled to cross-examine the witnesses produced at that juncture and are also entitled to produce evidence in defence. This requirement was fully complied with in the case of acquitted respondents. It is, therefore, not necessary to examine the maintainability of the petition on the touchstone of section 10 (2-A) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976. The scope of Intra-Court Appeal in terms of sections 3 and 4 and subsection (2-A) of section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 will be examined in some other appropriate case. We treat the Criminal Original Petition as a suo motu review petition, which may be registered as such.

10. Mr. Muhammad Ali Sayeed, raised another preliminary objection to the effect that several names were taken who were not arraigned before the three-member Bench. He further stated that many others were similarly named but no charge was framed against them. He submitted that no appeal against the fact of not being charged lies in view of WAPDA v. Chairman, N.I.R.C. (PLD 1979 SC 912).He contended that an appeal lies only against an order of conviction. Reliance was placed on Mohd. Mehmood v. Ramlakshman (1995 Cr.L.J. 1106 at 1109), Subhash Chandra Seti v. Sh. B.R. Kakkar, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Ludhiana ((1990) 2 PLR 46 at 47) and Syed Masroor Ahsan v. Ardeshir Cowasjee (PLD 1998 SC 823).

11. Mr. Sayeed, however, did not dispute the power of this Court to do complete justice in any given case and/or to exercise suo motu review. The second preliminary objection is repetitive of the first preliminary objection though in different form and the same does not merit any serious consideration, in that we have already observed that the Criminal Original Petition shall be treated as suo Motu review petition and is being disposed of as such.

12. On merits, Mr. Sayeed submitted that the material available on record does not, connect PML (N) with the incident of 28-11-1997. In support of the above submission, the learned counsel relied upon the following pieces of evidence:

P. W.2 Ch. Muhammad Ali, Assistant Commissioner, Sadar, Islamabad at page 353 of the paper book states: "After some time Mr. Mushahid Hussain came there and he also helped us by driving the people out from the derive way. The position was got cleared within half an hour at about 11-00 or 11-10 a. m." P. W.3 Iftikhar Ali Shalwani, Assistant Commissioner (Rural), Islamabad at page 357 states: "There I saw Kh. Asif talking to the people who we're coming up, to go out .... . " P.W.4 Liaqat Ali, S.D.P.O., Industrial Area, Islamabad at page 361 states: "After about 15/20 minutes I came back to the lobby outside Court Room No. l and saw the people going down. . This was being done with the help of some Parliamentarians." . P.W.10 Abid Ali, Additional Deputy Commissioner (General), Islamabad, at page 376 states: "I came to the door of the Court Room No. l which was closed and I just stood there. I requested some parliamentarians who were there outside the Court to help us in getting the people out. They helped us. We were successful in getting the people out with the help of parliamentarians and other people. This would have taken 5/10 minutes. With the help of the parliamentarians and other people including lawyers and police, we were able to slowly push the people out of the building

I remember two parliamentarians whom I had requested. One was Khawaja Asif and the other was Tariq Aziz, who was sitting on a chair. They helped us." P.W.12 Muhammad Ilyas, Judicial Assistant, Supreme Court of Pakistan, at page 387 states: "Before the crowd had come up, Khawaja Asif and Ch. Tanveer Ahmad had come out of the Court Room No. l for smoking cigarettes and when the people came up, the security people got the door, of Court closed. I remained outside the Court Room. Photographers had also come up along with the crowd. Khawaja Asif and Ch. Tanveer were requesting the people to go down but as soon as the photographers would focus their cameras towards the people, they would raise more slogans. The crowd remained in the hall outside the Court Room No. l about half an hour. No one from them went inside the Court

It is correct that Akhtar Mehmood remained inside the Court Room till the entire commotion was over. It is correct that Khawaja Asif and Ch. Tanveer reprimanded the people who had come up and asked them to go down. It is correct that they helped us in getting the people to clear the area." P.W.13 Zahid Hussain, Journalist, at page 392 states: "

I saw Khalid Anwar, Law Minister sitting there holding his head. I asked him, was he not ashamed of himself; shaking his head, he said "pathetic, pathetic". P.W.13 Altaf Hussain Bhatti, Journalist, at page 334 states: "I may add that when we were trying to clear the outside premises of those people who were still in the premises of the Supreme Court, Mr. Mushahid Hussain, Information Minister, came there and at that time some people present there clustered around him. At that time some slogans were raised but this Minister asked them to `shut up. At page 400, he states: "From there I reached ground floor lobby of the `Court. There Kh. Asif and Syed Zafar Ali Shah, MNAS were requesting the people to go out, but the people were raising slogans and after about 15 minutes people were pushed out from the building. " At page 401, he states "on the banners it was also written `Judiciary is greatly respected'." P.W.16, Fakhar-ur-Rehman, Journalist, states: "Inside the Court Room Mushtaq Ali Tahirkheli, Aurangzeb Khan and Sardar Muhammad Naseem wanted me to be handed over to them

I was first beaten up by Sardar Naseern and then I was rescued b the said Journalists. (According to the learned counsel, this does not constitute contempt of Court and it does not establish involvement of PML in the case). P.W.19 Ardeshir Cowasjee at page 414 states: "I accuse the Prime Minister and the ruling party for storming the Supreme Court ........ they obstructed the course of justice

At the time of our entry in Court Room the Judges were rising. There was pandemonium all around and when the doors of the Court Room were opened again, Khalid Anwar and I walked out." (According to the learned counsel, no weight can be given to his testimony on account of his avowed bias as shown in the opening sentence of his statement). P.W.21 Syed Iqbal Haider, Senator, at pages 423-424 states: "The attack on the Supreme Court started on 21-8-1997 but the physical mob attack took place on 28-11-1997. This was a premeditated attack by the party named Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz Group. This event not only happened on 28-11-1997 but prior also." (According to the learned counsel, the witness is a committed party worker and his statement is full of bias).

13. Mr. Tanvir Bashir Ansari, the learned Deputy Attorney General submitted that the learned three-member Bench had unequivocally held that a serious occurrence of rowdyism and contempt of Court took place on 28-I1-1997, therefore, it would be just and proper to conduct a thorough investigation to identify the persons and their role in the occurrence to effectively fix responsibility upon the persons concerned.

14. The learned Deputy Attorney-General filed a statement along with a `Chart of Evidence', which read thus: "During the proceedings in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 27 of 1998, as many as 53 witnesses were examined. Besides this, video cassettes produced by Mr. Ardeshir Cowasjee as well as original cassette recording on closed circuit TV cameras were also produced. The 53 witnesses included Mr. Altaf Hussain Bhatti, Mr. Ardeshir Cowasjee, Mr. Fakhar-ur-Rehman and Zahid Hussain. The statements so recorded are as under:--

1. Mr. Altaf Hussain Bhatti at pages 255--257 and Exhibit 24/1 at pages 33--39 of Part-II (of the Paper Book). He identified Mr. Riaz Khan, Mr. Shakil Awan, Mr. Maqbool Ahmad, Mr. Mumtaz Ahmad, Mr. Farooq Khattak, Mr. Liaqat Ali Khan, Javaida Fatima, Nelofar Bakhtiar, Seema Jilani but no show-cause notices were issued to them.

2. Mr. Ardeshir Cowasjee at pages 163--168 (of the Paper Book). He produced video cassettes containing superimposed names of those identified and their images encircled which included Senator Saifur Rehman, Akhtar Rasool etc. but no show-cause notice was issued to Mr. Saifur Rehman. Mr: Fakhar-ur-Rehman's statement at pages 404--407 and pages 341--343 specifically identifies Mushtaq Ali Tahir Kheli and Aurangzeb Khan amongst others Senator Syed Iqbal Haider in his statement at pages 423--421 also identifies Mushtaq Ali Tahir Kheli but even then the show-cause notice against Mr. Mushtaq Ali Tahir Kheli was discharged.

3. Mr. Zahid Hussain at pages 389--398 identified Senator Saifur Rehman at page 391, he also identified Senator Aurangzeb and Mushtaq Tahir Kheli. But no show-cause notice was issued to Senator Saifur Rehman while the one issued to Mushtaq Tahir Kheli was discharged. " "Important statements of these witnesses; the video cassettes and other material on the record such as photographs appearing in the newspapers and other magazines were sufficient fox issuance of show-cause notice to the persons mentioned above and there was no justification for discharging the show-cause notice against Mr. Mushtaq Tahir Kheli."