1988 P Cr (PLP)

Date of hearing: 19th December, 1987. The facts giving rise to these proceedings in contempt, briefly, are that Mst. Ayesha Butt filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 554-H of 1987 for the recovery of her daughter Mst. Ambreen aged about 2 years from the alleged illegal custody of Kh. Asad respondent on 24-10-1987. Since the respondent was father of Mst. Ambr?en. the alleged detenu, so I did not depute Bailiff for the recovery of the detenu, instead I directed him to produce child before the Court on 27-10-1987. He did not produce the child on that date and undertook to produce her on 31-10-1987. On 31-10-1987, he again did, not produce the child on the pretext that the child was with her grandmother living at Karachi and could not be brought to Lahore on account of sickness. On this I issued him a notice to show cause why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him. He filed reply to the show-cause notice on 22-11-1987, which was found unsatisfactory. It appeared to me that there were sufficient grounds to believe that he committed Contempt of Court on two occasions and it was necessary in the interest of effective administration of justice to proceed against him. So, I recorded the substance of the charges against him; Firstly: "that he disobeyed the order, dated 24-10-1987 of this Court whereby he was directed to produce Mst. Ambreen aged about two years, his daughter, before the Court on 27-10-1987; and Secondly: that he committed wilful breach of undertaking given by him to this Court on 27-10-1987 that he will produce the child on 31-10-1987." The respondent was present in the Court. He was informed of the grounds on which he was charged with the Contempt of Court. He was called upon to show cause why he should not be punished. In reply he stated that the undertaking given by him on 27-10-1987 was that he will persuade his mother Begum Razia Azhar to bring the child from Karachi to Lahore for producing her in the Court and that he tried his level best to persuade his mother to hand over the custody of his child but she refused to give child to him. The respondent wanted to produce evidence. He requested for time. So, the hearing of the case was adjourned. On 12-12-1987, the respondent filed unqualified apology and stated that he did not want to produce any evidence in defence.

2. Ch. Khurshid Ahmad, the learned counsel for the accused argued that since the accused has tendered unqualified apology, therefore, he may not be punished.

3. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that on 24-10-1987, this Court had directed the accused to produce Mst. Ambreen his daughter before the Court on 27-10-1987 but he did not comply with the order; that on 27-10-1987 he gave undertaking to the Court that he will produce the child on 31-10-1987 but he committed wilful breach of undertaking and did not produce the child on 31-10-1987; that in reply to the show-cause notice 'as to why he should not be punished'? He did not tender unqualified apology, rather took a false plea that the undertaking given by him to this Court was that he will persuade his mother to bring the child from Karachi to Lahore for producing her in the Court and that despite his best efforts, his mother has refused to hand over the custody of the child to him. He requested for adjournment to produce evidence in his defence. Instead of producing any evidence, he made retreat on 12-12-1987 and filed unqualified apology. It is by now well-settled that tendering of unqualified apology tantamounts to admission of the allegations of the contempt. So, no room is left to doubt that the accused had disobeyed the order of this Court dated 24-10-1987 and has also committed wilful breach of undertaking given by him to the Court on 27-10-1987 and as such he was/is guilty of the commission of an offence of Contempt of Court punishable under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 on two occasions and the two charges of Contempt of Court stand proved against him.

4. Adverting to the legal aspect of the apology, it is well? recognized that unqualified apology does not ipso facto purge the offence and is not a complete answer or defence to the charge of Contempt. The contemner cannot claim acquittal of charge or discharge of notice, as a matter of right, on the basis of unqualified apology. In the instant case, the accused did not tender unqualified apology at the earliest opportunity, he rather made false statement that he had not given undertaking to produce the child in the Court on 27-10-1987. It was on 12-12-1987 that he, for the first time, tendered unqualified apology and placed himself at the mercy of the Court. It seems to me that the apology tendered by him is not sincere and is only a subterfuge to avoid punishment. Since the accused committed naked contempt of Court on two occasions, therefore, I am of the view that in the interest of effective administration of justice, he should be punished under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976.

5. This brings me to the question of sentence. Although there is no doubt in my mind that the accused committed serious contempt of Court on two occasions, yet, in view of the fact, that he has tendered unqualified apology and placed himself at the mercy of the Court, I refrain from sending him to jail and sentence him to a fine of Rs.5,000 (Rupees five thousand) on each count or in default thereof two months' S.I. on each count. The fine shall be deposited in this Court by tomorrow. S.G.D./S-188/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Contemner convicted.