MUHAMMAD AZEEM Versus Z. A. SULEHRI

ORDER

Haji Muhammad Azeem has filed this petition under Article 204 of the

Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan read with section 3/4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, against Z. A. Sulehri, Chief Editor, Daily Pakistan Times, Lahore and two other journalists including the Editor, Printer and Publisher of Daily Nawa-i-Waqt, Lahore. There .are 5 other respondents, out of whom 4 to 7 are sons of late Malik Amir Muhammad Khan whereas respondent No. 8 is one Haji Sher Muhammad.

2. It is alleged by the petitioner that on 5-10-1980 when Constitutional Petition No. 10300 of 1980 filed by respondents Nos. 4 to 8 came up for hearing before me, I directed the Advocate-General to send for the Investiga ting Officer with the record as well as to obtain necessary information as to how many cases had been registered against these respondents. But I did not admit respondents Nos. 4 to 8 (petitioners in the constitutional petition) to bail nor the Advocate-General was directed that these persons shall not be arrested till the record was examined.

Learned counsel contended that the news item appearing in Daily Pakistan Times, Lahore and Nawa-i-Waqt, Lahore dated 6th October 1980, was that I had admitted these respondents to interim bail. According to the learned counsel this was serious "misrepresentation of this proceeding and fabrication of orders which had never been passed by this Honour able Court" and the news item was published with "ulterior motives to protect the criminals from arrest for the time being". On these facts, learned counsel wanted me to take action against the respondents under Art. 204 and section 3/4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976.

3. 1 have heard the learned counsel at some length and have also gone through the news items copies of which have been annexed with this petition.

4. The proper course for the Press is to wait till an order is signed by the Judge and then only the news should be flashed. Many times it so happens that during the arguments when the discussion is on, the Judge makes certain observations which he is not obliged to incorporate in his order. Some time a statement is made at the Bar by a lawyer whether he is a law officer or a private practitioner. Such statement at the .Bar binds the maker and is always honoured and is not usually mentioned in the order. The order ,passed by the Judge confines to the relevant facts, and) findings .

Many times judicial proceedings are not correctly reported. The result is that either an apology is to be tendered or the correct news is to be published.

Therefore, it would be better for the Press to wait till an order is signed by the Judge because then -only it becomes the right of every citizen to know what the Court has decided.

5. So far as this case is concerned, it shows over enthusiasm, unnecessar haste and lack of sense of responsibility. However, it is not a fit case to proceed against the respondents for Contempt of Court. This petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.

M. A. K. Petition dismissed.