1987 P Cr (PLP)

On the same day (7‑6‑1986) Muhammad Sharif applied for cancellation of bail before Tatheer Hussain Sherazi, Additional Sessions Judge: The Additional Sessions Judge by his order of even date suspended the operation of the bail order till 12 noon. In the later part of that day he dismissed the application for cancellation of bail after hearing both the parties. Another important order in this sequence passed by Tatheer Hussain Sherazi, dated 18‑11‑1985, is to the following effect:‑‑ "For some personal reasons I do not want to hear this case which is sent to, the learned Sessions Judge, Mianwali, for further entrustment to some other Court of competent jurisdiction. The father of the complainant is present. The accused are present in custody. They are directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Mianwali, tomorrow. Prosecution witnesses, for the time being are discharged." While dealing with the application for cancellation of bail, I had called for report by my order, dated 29‑6‑1986 from Tatheer Hussain Sherazi. A detailed reference of this report is given in my order, dated 14‑ 10‑ 1986. The contemner appeared before me number of times. He was represented by a counsel. Finally, on 7‑12‑19M he filed written reply, in which he tendered unconditional apology and threw himself at the mercy of the Court. His counsel submitted that the apology tendered by the contemner be accepted, he be excused and the rule discharged. I have also heard the Assistant Advocate‑General and have gone through the written reply. Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 oft the written reply are relevant. They are reproduced below:‑‑ ?(5) That the answering respondent has passed the impugned order due to inadvertence and on misconception of facts as at that time of passing the impugned order, the answering respondent was mislead by the counsel for the accused persons and the factum of the rejection of bail applicati6n by this Honourable Court on the ground of delay in conclusion of the trial was not brought to the notice of the answering respondent. (6) That the answering respondent expresses his profoundest grief and is extremely sorry for having passed the order not inconsonance with the orders passed by this Honourable Court. (7) That this was the first time that the answering respondent has committed an error due to inadvertance and slackness. The answering respondent being a probationer in the judicial service having only two years experience throws himself at the mercy of this Honourable Court and tenders unconditional apology. Persual of these paragraphs shows that although the contemner tendered unconditional apology but actually he tried to justify his sentence on the ground of lack of assistance by the Advocate, lack of knowledge about the order of the High Court and lack of experience on his part as judicial Officer being a new entrant in service. I am clear in my mind that this type of apology cannot be taken as unconditional apology. An unconditional apology has to be without any qualification. I am, therefore, not prepared to treat it as unconditional apology nor do I accept the same. The contemner joined service as Additional District and Sessions Judge on 28‑ 3‑1984. He was on probation till 23‑8‑1987. The Government terminated his services on 26‑1‑1987. Although his services have been terminated by the Government nevertheless I do not think he can be exonerated or even excused for his mala fide or the arbitrary discretion exercised in favour of the accused when manoeuvred to obtain the bail order through back‑door. Keeping in view the circumstances in which the contemner allowed bail to the accused, I am clear in my mind that thereby he brought the authority of this Court as well as administration of law into disrespect. I, therefore, hold him guilty under section 3 of the Contempt o Court Act and sentence him to pay fine of Rs.10,000 (ten thousand). I default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. S.G.D./S‑48/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.