ABDUL KAREEM vs SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-TERRORISM ACTIVITIES COURT, LARKANA and Sukkur Division at Sukkur and another
This matter originated as a petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging a conviction for contempt of court, which the High Court converted into an appeal under Section 25(3) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997. The appellant, a defence advocate, had been convicted and sentenced by an Anti-Terrorism Court for allegedly making a false statement regarding the availability of a prosecution witness at a specific location. The core legal question was whether the appellant's statement, which the trial court deemed contemptuous, was factually falsified by evidence showing the witness was attending an examination elsewhere on the same day. The High Court, upon review, determined that the evidence did not conclusively falsify the appellant's statement, as the witness could have been present at the location in the morning and still reached the examination venue by the afternoon. Consequently, the Court accepted the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered the refund of the fine paid by the appellant, establishing that a conviction for contempt cannot be sustained where the alleged falsity of a statement is not definitively proven.
- Can a conviction for contempt of court be sustained when the alleged false statement is not conclusively disproven by the evidence?
- Does the High Court have the authority to convert a petition filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 into an appeal under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997?
- Is a statement regarding a witness's location falsified if the witness could have been at the stated location during the morning and still attended an examination in the afternoon?
- Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 25(3), Anti-Terrorism Act 1997
ORDER
' GHULAM NABI SOOMRO, J.--- This is a petition under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Praying to set aside the order of conviction passed against the applicant by the Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Sukkur A and Larkana Divisions at Sukkur vide order dated 4-9-2001. Since there is a provision of appeal provided in the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, this petition is converted into an appeal under section 25(3) of the Act.
2. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the appellant who is an Advocate and permanently stationed at Moro Town while present before the learned trial Court in Special Cases Nos.86 of 2000 and 229 of 2000 while acting as defence Advocate purportedly made a statement before the Court that one P.W. Namely Mustan Ali was available on his shop at Moro. Such statement of the ,appellant in the capacity of defence lawyer made before the Courts was put to scrutiny and the complainant in the case was allowed to file documents in disproof of such statement. Certain documents were placed on record showing that on the relevant day i,e, 30-8-2001 P.W. Mustan Ali had appeared in M.B.,B.S. Examination at Larkana. The learned trial Judge upon receipt of this document issued a show-cause notice to the appellant calling upon him to explain why he should not be sentenced for contempt. The appellant submitted a reply on the same day wherein he while repeating his grievance that Mustan Ali P.W. Was avoiding to appear before the Court for giving evidence reiterated that he (the appellant) was informed by his client about the latter's presence in Moro. In any case, the appellant prayed for mercy and unconditional apology; Such prayer of the appellant was not accepted hence he was convicted and sentenced to R.I. Till rising of the Court and fine of Rs,5,000 and in default to suffer two months' R.I. More. The appellant paid amount of Rs,5,000 on the same day.
3. It is, inter alia, argued on behalf of the appellant that the learned trial Judge fell in grave error and omitted a very important fact that the P.W. Mustan Ali was to appear at Larkana in his M.B.,B.S. Examination which was to commence from 2 p.m. To 5 p.m. And not earlier.
4. Mr. Sher Muhammad Shar learned A.A.-G. Appearing for the State was very frankly conceded to the appeal by stating that the statement made by the appellant before the learned trial Court does not stand falsified as it was nobody's case that P.W. Was seen at Moro just before 2 pm. Mr. Imdad Ali Awan, learned counsel for the appellant urged that the P.W. Could be available at Moro in the morning hours and in spite of such fact he could also reach Larkana within about two hours thereafter.
5. We find great force in the contention raised in support of the appeal. Resultantly, we accept this appeal and set aside .The impugned judgment. The amount of Rs,5,000 is ordered to be refunded to the appellant.