1977 PLP 271 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.‑On 28‑6‑1974 a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court at Lahore convicted the throe appellants and sentenced them each to two months simple imprisonment and fine of Re. 900 or in default to suffer further simple imprisonment for one month, for having committed the contempt of that Court. This is an appeal against the order jointly filed by the three appellants. During the pendency of the appeal. A. S. I. Zahoor Ahmad, appellant No. 3, died and this appeal qua him has abated. This will, therefore, dispose of the appeal of the remaining two appellants. Briefly the relevant facts are that one S. M. Ijaz Ali filed a habeas corpus petition in the Lahore High Court at Lahore against the detention of his son, Nawazish Ali, without any lawful authority in vie Police Station, Wahadat Colony, Lahore. On this on 28th of June 1974, a learned Judge of the Lahore High, passed an order for the recovery and production of the detenu in Court. Mr. Muhammad Munir, an Assistant in the Criminal Branch of the Lahore High Court, was deputed as a bailiff to carry out the Court's order. At the relevant time S. I. Shafdat Ali Chattha, appellant No. 1 was the S. H. O., Zahoor Ahmad appellant No. 3 as the A. S. I and appellant No. 2 Muhammad Anwar, as the Moharar A. S, Z. posted at the Police Station. In pursuance to the order passed by the High Court, Mr. Muhammad Munir bailiff alongwith the said S. M. Ijaz Ali arrived at the Police Station at 1‑40 p.m. on the 28th of June 19

74. The Police Station consisted of four or five quarters. The bailiff found the detenu hand cuffed by one hand in one of those quarters. The bailiff accompanied by S. M. Ijaz Ali then entered the room of Muhammad Anwar, Moharar A. S. I. The bailiff disclosed his identity to the Moharar and at his asking he gave the roznamcha to him, which was checked by the bailiff': According to the bailiff at the time the last entry in the roznamcha was at Serial No.9 dated 28‑6‑1974. The bailiff along with his comparison, then went to the adjoining room where S. H. O. Shafqat Ali Cbattha and A. S. I. Zahoor Ahmad were sitting. He enquired from the S. H. O. about the detewio n of Nawazish Ali at the Police Station. On this the S. H. O. pointed towards A. S. I. Zahoor Ahmad and said that he was investigating the case and asked him to bring the relevant file. On this A. S. I. went to the room of the Moharar. It is alleged that the A. S. I after taking the roznamcha from the moharar slipped away from the Police Station. When the bailiff saw the A .S. I running away with the roznamcha, he got up and protested to the S. H. O about his conduct. Just as he wanted to run after him, the S. H. O. caught hold of the bailiff from his arm and asked him to be patient anti mid that the roznamcha would be made available to him after a few minutes. He then sent a constable after A. S. I. Zahoor Ahmad to bring the roznamcha and he returned with the roznamcha after about 10 minutes. On seeing the roznamcha the bailiff found that the Reports Nos. 10 and 11 had been entered in it by fabrication and out of these Report No, 10 was relating to the arrest of the detenu Nawazish Ali. The bailiff brought this to the notice of the S. H. O. who was reluctant to take any action in the matter. He then asked the S. H. O. to show him the F. I. R. register and the Zamnis pertaining to the arrest of the detenu. On this he informed him that the case was under investigation with A. S. I. Zahoor Ahmad and the relevant papers were with him. The S. H. O. therefore, again sent the same constable to bring the relevant police file from the A. S. I at about 2.25 p.m. the constable returned with the file and told the S. .H. O. that the A. S. I. eras not available. He further informed him that he had handed over the keys of the almirah to him and he (the constable) had brought the file and the register from the almirah. According to the last Zamni No. 3 dated 28th June 1974, the detenu had been arrested at 11.00 am on that day in connection with the F. I. R. No.130 dated 21st of June 1974. The bailiff asked for the copies of the two Reports Nos. 10 and 11 entered in the roznamcha, the F. I. R. anti the Zamin No. 3 from the S. H. O. while these copies were still under preparation, the S. H. O. left with the Moharar who was preparing the copies for the mosque of Wahdat Colony, saying that he had to mike certain arrests from there in connection with the Anti Qadiani Movement. They returned after about half an hour along with one Farid Paracha and Mr. Maqbool Ahmad Bajwa, D. S. P. Ichhra Circle, Lahore. The S. H. O. asked the bailiff to collect the copies aster about an hour. On this the D. S. g. enquired from the bailiff about the purposes of his visit and he told him all about it. At about 5‑00 p.m. in the evening the bailiff' went to Police Station to collect the copies. On this S. H. O. called the A. .S. I. and requested the bailiff to forgive Vote A. S. I. as he was an old man and was at the age of the retirement. But the bailiff did not agree. On this the A. S. I flared up and threatened him that he was going to lodge a report against him and the constable who brought the foe and the F. I. R. register, for having broken open the lock of his almirah and removed the valuables. The bailiff wanted to make a note in the roznamcha about this treatment meted out to him but was rot allowed to do so. He then left the Police Station arid submitted his report to the above effect in the High Court on the 1st of July 1974. On this report the High Court issued notices to the three appellants I S. H. O Shafqat Ali Chattha and A. S. I Zahoor Ahmad jointly filed their reply denying the allegations and asserted that Nawazish Ali, the allegeds deteuu had in fact been arrested by A. S. I. Zahoor Ahmad at 11‑00 a.m on 28‑6‑1974 in connection with the F. I. R. No. 130 registered on 21‑6‑1974 under section 382, P. P. C. and that Report No. 10 about his arrest was duly entered in the roznamcha before the arrival of the bailiff at the Police: ,Station at about 1‑50 pm on 28‑6‑1974. They denied that this report was fabricated and entered in the roznamcha after his arrival. Towards the end of their reply they also relied on a Report No. 14 dated 28‑6‑1974 ent.3red in the roznamcha against Mr. Muhammad Munir bailiff to the effect that he had tried to bring pressure on police officers for a settlement and to discharge Nawazish Ali accused and also threatened them with dire consequences in the event of their failure to do so. Muhammad Anwar Mohrar, A. S. I. also appeared Court but did not file any reply to the notice issued to him. In support of the contempt notices the prosecution examined Mr. Muhammad Munir, Assistant. Criminal Branch, bailiff of the High Court, S. M. Ijaz Ali, petitioner in the habeas corpus petition and Nawazish Ali. the detenu as witnesses. The Court also took notice of the fact the Nawazish Ali detenu, who had been lodged by the Police in the Camp Jail at Lahore was medically examined by the jail doctor under the order or the Court on 2‑7‑1972 and he was found to have nine injuries on his person of the duration of 10‑15 days which period coincided with the period of his illegal detection at the Police Station. The Court relied on the statement of Mr. Maqbool Ahmad Bajwa, D. S. P. who admitted that on 28‑6‑1974, while at the Police Station, the bailiff had brought the entire incident to his notice as well. The learned Judge in Chambers was satisfied from the evidence that Nawazish Ali was detained without any lawful authority at the Police Station from 22‑6‑1974. After the raid by the bailiff on 28‑6‑1974 to effect recovery of the detenu under the order of the High Court, A. S. I. Zahur Ahmad found himself in a difficult situation. He, therefore, took awe` the roznamcha from the room of the Moharar A. S. I and thereafter by fabrication recorded Repoit No. 10 in the roznamcha about the arrest of the detenu as having been made at 11‑0U am on 28‑6‑1974 before the arrival of the bailiff at the Police Station. In the opinion of the learned Judge this was done with the connivance of S. I. Shafqat Ali Chattha and Muhammad Anwar, A. S. I who helped A. S. I. Zahur Ahmad and provided the opportunity to him to deliberately defeat the order passed by the High Court. The three accused were, therefore, found guilty of contempt of the High Court. The accused also tendered a belated unconditional apology. But in that connection the High Court observed that S. I. Shafqat Ali Ctiattha had in sheer abuse of his authority as the police officer, gone to the length of even entering a false Report No. 14 against the bailiff to the effect that he had asked him to compromise the matter with the father of the detenu otherwise he shall suffer for it. This fact was considered to have aggravated the gravity of the charge against the accused in flouting the authority of the High Court. The learned Judge, therefore, refused to accept the apology tendered before him. He however, observed that in view of the fact that the three accused were being separately prosecuted by S M. Ijaz Ali in the criminal Court where they were facing their trial, he took a lenient view and sentenced each of them to two month's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500 each or in default to suffer further simple' imprisonment for ore month. In this appeal before us the learned counsel for the appellants, after the death of A. S. I Zahur Ahmad deceased, appellant No. 3, tried to place the entire blame on him who was undoubtedly the principal accused. But this does not altogether absolve appellant No. 1, S. I. Shafqat Ali Chattha of his responsibility in the matter. We are unable to agree with the learned' counsel in his submission to the effect that on the evidence on the record) the prosecution has failed to establish that there was any collusion or connivance between A. S. I. Zahur Ahmad and S. I. Shafqat Ali Chattha in this affair. It is amply proved from the sworn testimony of Mr. Muhammad Munir, bailiff of the High Court, corroborated by the circumstances of this case, that A. S. I. Zahur Ahmad was successful in taking away the roznamcha from the Police Station and S. I. Shafqat Ali Chattha had obstructed the bailiff when be wanted to catch him while he was running away. This had facilitated his escape from the Police Station with the roznamcha, and provided the opportunity to him to falsely enter Report No. 10 concerning the arrest of Nawazish Ali (detenu) as having a been made at 11.00 a.m. on 28‑6‑1974 before the arrival of the bailiff at the Police Station. The subsequent events also go to establish his complicity with A. S I. Zahur Ahmad in committing the contempt of the High Court so much so that he even went to the extent of concocting a false Report No. 14 dated 28‑6‑1974 entered in the roznamcha against the bailiff. Before us his learned counsel was unable to defend him in putting up this malicious report. In this Court also the two of them in their joins written statement have made it a common cause, without Appellant No.1 In any way disassociating with appellant No.

3. In our opinion, on a re‑appraisal of the entire evidence the High Court was fully justified in finding them guilty for having committed its contempt. We have, therefore no hesitation in maintaining the conviction of Appellant No.

1. S. I. Shafqat Ali Chattha. As a last resort, the learned counsel submitted that Ch. Shafqat Ali Chattha is a young officer. He has already put in about 15 years of his valuable service. He is at present posted as S. H. O. Shadara and his entice career is at present at stake. He tendered unqualified apology in the High Court. In this Court also he begged for apology and threw himself at the mercy of the Court. He has prayed for compassion and leniency so that his career does not suffer. We have considered all these submissions advanced before us. In our opinion the High Court acted in accordance with law in the exercise of its jurisdiction in convicting the appellant and awarding the sentence for its contempt. It is imperative that in these, matters the prestige of the High Court is maintained. We cave, therefore, refrained from interfering with the order under appeal passed by the High Court. But the appellant, if so advised, tray suitably apply to the High Court and make amends for the remission of the sentence awarded to him. With these observations the appeal of S.I. Shafqat Ali Chattha is dismissed. But the case against appellant No. 2, Muhammad Anwar Moharar A. S. I. stands on an altogether different footing and on the evidence before us his conviction cannot be sustained. It is noteworthy that the bailiff on arrival at the Police Station saw appellant No. 2 who had no hesitation showing the roznamcha to him. Thereafter, at the request of the bailiff, the S. H. O. Shafqat Ali asked A. S. I. Zahur Ahmad to fetch the roznamcha. On this the latter after having picked up the roznarncha from the Moharar slipped away from the Police Station. Evidently the Moharar acted under the order of the S. H. O. incharge of the Police Station in giving the roznamcha to A. S. I. Zahur Ahmad who had been deputed to fetch the same. There is nothing to show that he was also party to the collusion between his two seniors and was instrumental in allowing A. S. I, Zahur Ahmad to slip away from the Policc Station along with the roznamcha. The finding by the High Court in this respect is based on no evidence, We, therefore, accept his appeal and set aside hit conviction and sentence. Order accordingly.