1989 P (PLP)

‑‑‑ Notice for contempt of Court was issued to the Magistrate for showing sheer disregard to the mandatory directions given by High Court in the matter of grant/refusal of remand, more particularly remand to police custody‑‑Magistrate tendered unqualified apology, placed himself at the mercy of Court and undertook to be more careful m future‑‑Notice recalled in circumstances. Ghulam Sarwar and another v. The State 1984 P Cr. L J 2.58$ ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V or 1898)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 167 & 344‑‑Remand of accused‑‑High Court showed great concern for not following the directions given by superior Courts from time to time in the matter of grant/refusal of remand adjournments. Ghulam Sarwar and another v. The State 1984 P Cr. L J 2588 ref. S.M. Rizvi, A.A: G. for Appellant. In the course of hearing Writ Petition No. 792/89 it came to my notice that Ashiq Muhammad, M.I.C., Khanpur, had shown sheer disregard to the mandatory directions given by this Court in the matter of grant/refusal of remand, more particularly remand to Police custody, in reported case Ghulam Sarwar and another v. The State 1984 P Cr. L J 2588. So I issued him notice to show cause as to why contempt proceedings be not initiated. He has tendered unqualified apology, and placed himself at the mercy of the Court. He is present A in the Court. He undertakes to be more careful in future. That being the position, the notice is recalled.

2. Before parting with the order, I feel constrained to observe that Magistrates in the Province of Punjab are not following directions given by the superior Courts from time to time in the matter of grant/refusal of F remand/adjournment, which they under the law are bound to follow. The Courts are being blamed for inordinate delay in the disposal of criminal cases. The complaints of the citizens in this respect are quite genuine. My assessment was/is that m trials before the Magistrates and the Court of Session, the main cause of delay is reckless grant of remand/adjournments by the Magistrates. A Sessions Judge cannot take cognizance of a case triable by him unless it is sent up to him by the Magistrate. The challans are not submitted before the Magistrates for months and years together, although Government of Punjab and Lahore High Court as well, have been stressing on the submission of challan within 15 days. Yesterday I painfully noted that m case Muhammad Tufail v. State Criminal Miscellaneous 460‑B of 1988 challan was not submitted for more than two years. To achieve speedy trial and curtail the chances of delay in the submission of challan, I had given authoritative directions/instructions to the Magistrates in the matter of grant of remand and adjournments in Ghulam Sarwar's case. The guidance was meant both for the Magistrates and the Police. Copies of the judgment were made available to all District Magistrates and Superintendents of Police and Sessions Judges of Punjab. 1n the last paragraph of another judgment in case The State v. Assistant Commissioner, Minchinabad 1985 M L D 1421. 1 stated that the Magistrates should realize that they are answerable and accountable to the High Court for the illegalities and irregularities done by them and that the High Court under section 439 Cr.P.C. is quite competent to examine the correctness of the orders passed by them and in case they violate the instructions given by this Court, serious action may be taken against them. Let copy of this order be sent to District Magistrates, Superintendents of Police and Sessions Judges of all the districts in Punjab. They would ensure that instructions given by me m the matter of remand/adjournments are fully complied with by the Magistrates. The Sessions Judges would bring non‑compliance of these instructions by the Magistrates to the notice of the Registrar/Additional Registrars of the Lahore High Court/Benches. 1t is really sad that neither the District Magistrates have ensured that instructions given by this Court in the matter of remand/adjournments are complied with by the Magistrates nor the learned Sessions Judges have brought non‑compliance of these instructions by the Magistrates to the notice of this Court through Registrar/Additional Registrars of Lahore High Court/Benches. The Magistrates as usual are granting reckless remand/adjournments in token of Police co‑operation and for that they are violating the mandatory provisions of statute; relevant High Court. Rules and Orders and guidelines given by the superior Courts. This not only diminishes the authority of the Magistrate but also impairs public confidence in their impartiality and integrity. This tarnishes the image of magistracy. People often say that Police and Magistrates are one and the same thing: This belief neither enhances the dignity of Magistrates nor that of Police. The Magistrates must co‑operate with police in law and order matters, but in no case they should violate the law and the instructions/directions/guidelines given by the superior Courts. They should not cross limits in judicial matters at the cost of the liberty of citizens. I once again remind them that they are bound under the law to follow the instructions given by this Court in case Ghulam Sarwar and another v. The State reported as 1984 P Cr. L J 2588 disregard/disobedience/violation whereof may expose them to an action under Contempt of Court Act, 1976, under Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules and withdrawal of their judicial powers. Fur the effective compliance of the instructions given in 1984 P Cr. L J 2588 it is desirable that the learned Sessions Judges in Punjab shall examine the remand/adjournment orders passed by the Magistrates at the time of hearing of bail applications and report non‑compliance on the part of the Magistrates. MA.K./S‑505/L Contempt notice recalled.