KHADIM HUSSAIN Versus THE STATE
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentencing of the appellants by the Sessions Judge, Narowal, for an offence under Section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellants, police officials, were convicted for allegedly insulting the court by arresting and detaining an individual who had previously been granted bail in a criminal case. The core legal question was whether the appellants' act of arresting a person already on bail constituted an intentional insult to the court under Section 228, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Upon review, the High Court found that the appellants were not posted at the relevant police station when the bail was granted and the detainee failed to produce any bail order at the time of arrest. The Court held that the arrest was a result of negligence rather than a deliberate intent to insult the court. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. The judgment establishes that for a conviction under Section 228, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, specific intent to insult the court must be proven, and mere negligence or administrative error does not suffice.
- Does the arrest of a person already on bail by police officers, without knowledge of the bail order, constitute an intentional insult to the court under Section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is proof of specific intent to insult the court a necessary ingredient for a conviction under Section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Section 228, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
Khadim Hussain and Muhammad Ashraf appellants were convicted for an offence under section 228, P.P.C. vide order, dated 15‑2‑2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Narowal and Khadim Hussain appellant was sentenced to simple imprisonment for seven days and a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for four days and Muhammad Ashraf appellant was sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs.500 or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for three days. The appellants have challenged their convictions and sentences before this Court through the present appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for the State and have gone through the record, of this case with their assistance.
3. The allegation against the appellants is that they had arrested and detained one Mubashar Ahmad alias Heera, respondent No.2 herein, on 6‑2‑2002 in connection with a criminal case at a time when the said person already stood admitted to, bail in the same case vide order, dated 31‑5‑2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Narowal. After his arrest and detention by the appellants on 6‑2‑2002 the said person had been released on 9‑2‑2002. While convicting the appellants for an offence under section 228, P.P.C. the learned Sessions Judge, Narowal had observed that by arresting the above‑mentioned person at a time when he was already on bail in the same case the appellants had insulted the said learned Court and thus, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as mentioned and detailed above.
4. After going through the record of this case it has appeared to this Court that the act of arresting the above‑mentioned person by the appellants might be a result of negligence and carelessness on the part of the appellants but the said act was surely not committed with any intention to insult the Court admitting the said person to bail. It is not disputed that the appellants were not posted at the relevant police Station when the said accused person had been admitted to bail in the year 2000 and also that the said person had not produced any order of bail before the appellants when they had arrested and detained him on 6‑2‑2002. It is available in the impugned order itself that the said affected person had pardoned the appellants and had depicted no intention to prosecute them for his wrongful confinement. There is nothing available on the present record regarding any intention on the part of the appellants to commit a crime or to insult any Court. In these circumstances applicability of the provisions of section 228, P.P.C. to the case in hand is by itself quite suspect.
5. For what has been discussed above this appeal is allowed, the convictions and sentences of the appellants passed by the learned trial Court are set aside and the appellants are acquitted. The appellants have already been admitted to bail by this Court vide order, dated 22‑5‑2002 during the pendency of this appeal. Their bail Bonds and sureties shall stand discharged.
H.B.T./K‑4/L Appeal allowed.