KHADIM HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE
M. NAEEM ULLAH KHAN SHERWANI, J .‑‑‑This judgment will dispose of six connected appeals bearing Criminal Appeal No.210 of 1994 (Abdul Rehman Wattoo v. The State); Criminal Appeal No.211 of 1994 (Khadim Hussain v. The State); Criminal Appeal No.230 of 1994 (Maqbool Ahmad and another v. The State); Criminal Appeal No.231 of 1994. (Ghulam Sarwar and three others v. The State); Criminal Appeal No.232 of 1994 (Muhammad Aslam and another v. The State); and Criminal Appeal No.246 of 1994 (Muhammad Abbas and another v. The State), as the same arise out of judgment dated 24‑4‑1994 passed by a learned Single Judge in Chamber while disposing of Criminal Original Petitions Nos.21, 23 and 28 of 1994.
2. Precisely, the facts relevant to the case are that one Purmal filed a habeas corpus petition bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No.118/H of 1994 for recovery of Hassan Khan and Elahi from illegal detention and wrongful confinement of Abdul Rehman Wattoo, Inspector/S.H.O, Police Station Hujra Shah Muqeem, and on 21‑2‑1994 a bailiff was directed to recover above‑said alleged detenus. The bailiff submitted his report on 22‑2‑1994 stating therein that the detenus could not be recovered. Abdul Rehman Wattoo, Inspector, who also appeared on the said date, deposed that neither the detenus were accused in any case of his police station nor he summoned them. Accordingly said petition was dismissed.
Above‑said Purmal Khan again preferred Criminal Miscellaneous No.133/H of 1994 on 27‑2‑1994 for recovery of Abdul Majeed, Hassan Khan, Muhammad Akram and Ghulam Rasool and a bailiff was deputed to recover the alleged detenus from custody of said Inspector, namely Abdul Rehman Wattoo. On 28‑2‑1994, the bailiff submitted his report deposing therein that the detenus were not found within the precincts of the police station, but Purmal Khan informed him that alleged detenus are detained in the residence meant for the police officials adjacent to the police station. He accordingly raided the said house, which was locked from outside. He broke the lock and found alleged detenus therein. During this process, one police official snatched F.I.R. register and daily dairy of the police station from the bailiff and the other police officials managed to slip away from the spot with the detenus.
After perusing report of the bailiff and recording his statement, learned Single Judge in Chamber issued notice to Abdul Rehman Wattoo, Inspector under Contempt of Court Act. It was numbered as Criminal Original No.21 of 1994. At the same time, Superintendent of Police, Okara was ordered to probe into the matter and also arrange identification parade of the police officials, who caused hindrance in execution of the order of this Court with the assistance of the bailiff and the petitioner was adjourned to 9‑3‑1994. On this date, statement of the bailiff was recorded, which transpired that Khadim Hussain, Ghulam Sarwar, Head Constables, Shafiq Ahmad, Muhammad Idrees and Sarfraz, Constables, prima facie, participated in the proceedings, which led to the interference and obstruction in the execution of the order of Court's order.
So, show‑cause notices were also issued against said police officials under the Contempt of Court Act. On the said date, statement of one of the detenus, namely Hassan Khan, was also recorded. He stated that Muhammad Aslam, A.S.I. Abbas and Niaz, constables removed them from the place of their detention. Accordingly, notices were also issued against them under the Contempt of Court Act, and it was directed that they should appear before the Court, on 30‑3‑1994. These proceedings were converted into Criminal Original No.23 of 1994.
On 30‑3‑1994, inquiry report conducted by a D.S.P. was submitted by Superintendent of Police, Okara, which reveals that apart from Muhammad Aslam, A.S.I. Muhammad Abbas, and Niaz Ahmad Constables, Ali Hussain Shah, A.S.I. Maqbool Ahmad A.S.I. Abdul Rauf and Muhammad Bashir Constables too obstructed the execution of order of the Court. Upon perusal of this report notice was also issued to these police officials under the Contempt of Court Act. It was registered as Criminal Original No.28 of 1994. The case was then adjourned to 6‑4‑1994.
The contemners submitted their respective replies and upon perusal thereof, the learned Single Judge in Chamber charge‑sheeted them on 6‑4‑1994 and recorded their statements without oath. They all gave similar reply to question No.2, do you plead guilty to the charge or not', which is reproduced:‑
"I plead guilty to the charge tender unqualified apology acid throw myself at the mercy of the Court. I really repent and assure this Court that throughout my service I will not show disrespect to the orders of this Court and request that this time I may be forgiven."
3. After hearing argument of learned counsel for both sides and considering all facts and circumstances of the case, learned Single Judge in Chamber, by virtue of his judgment dated 24‑4‑1994, found them guilty under section 3 of the Contempt of Court Act and punished them in the following manner:‑
(i) Abdul Rehman Wattoo, Inspector:
Simple imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
(ii) Khadim Hussain, Head Constable:
Simple imprisonment for two months and a fine of Rs. 500 or in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for ten days.
They were directed to be taken into custody and sent to jail to serve out the sentences imposed upon them.
(iii) Shafiq Ahmad, Sarfraz Hussain, Niaz and Muhammad Bashir Constables:
Fine of Rs. 500 each or in default of suffer simple imprisonment for seven days each.
(iv) Ghulam Sarwar, F.C. and Muhammad Idrees, Naib Muharrir:
Fine of Rs. 1,000 each or in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for ten days each.
(v) Muhammad Aslam, A.S.‑L. and Muhammad Abbas, F.C.
Sentence till rising of the Court and fine of Rs. 2,000 and Rs. 700 respectively, or in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days each.
(vi) Ali Hussain Shah and Maqbool Ahmad, A.S.‑Is.:
Fine of Rs.2,000 each or in default thereof to suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days.
(vii) Abdul Rauf, F.C.:
Fine of Rs.500 or in default thereof to undergo sample imprisonment for ten days.
The contemners, who had to pay fine, were allowed one month's time to deposit the amount of fine in the Government Treasury failing which, Superintendent of Police, Okara was directed to cause their arrest and send them to jail to serve out the sentences in lieu thereof.
3. The convicts by filing the above -referred appeals have called in question convictions and sentences passed against them by the said learned Judge.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that at the first available opportunity they had submitted unconditional apology and had thrown themselves at the mercy of Court, so only a warning may be given to them or in the alternative it may be ordered that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber may not be considered a disqualification nor made basis for any penalty or departmental action against them.
5. Learned counsel for the State opposed all these appeals tooth and nail and wholeheartedly supported the impugned judgment.
6. We have courteously heard respectively arguments of both the sides and soberly considered the same. We have gone through the length and breath of the matter after examining entire proceedings culminating into their convictions and various terms of sentences. We have failed to find any fault therein and notice that already a lenient view has been adopted by the learned Single Judge in Chamber in the matter of punishment awarded to the appellants: They played hide and seek game with the Court to obstruct the process of law and course of judicial proceedings. They have admitted their guilt. Variety or acts committed by them seriously injured honour and dignity of Court for which they rightly stood convicted and punished. It will be in public interest that order of Court be vindicated even though an unqualified apology offered by them, it may not be accepted as a matter of course without applying mind. We are constrained to hold that conduct of appellants was such that in they go unpunished, or with simple warning public confidence in Courts would be shaken and impaired and would also create formidable hurdles in achieving ends of justice. No further leniency can be shown in this case keeping in view the startling nature of charge having been committed by them.
7. For all these reasons, we while maintaining convictions and sentences of the appellants dismiss their appeals.
H.B.T./K‑143/L Appeals dismissed.