ASHFAQ AHMAD SHEIKH vs The STATE
This petition seeks to review a decision of the Supreme Court refusing to interfere with an order punishing the petitioner for contempt of court, though the sentence was previously reduced. The core legal questions involve whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt based on a cited precedent and whether the punishment awarded was excessively harsh. The Supreme Court held that neither ground is available for review, distinguishing the facts of the cited precedent from the present case where a deliberate and serious act of contempt was committed, and noting that the sentence had already been considerably reduced keeping in view the petitioner's standing as a junior pleader. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether grounds for review are made out when a petitioner claims the benefit of a previously reported precedent?
- Does an act of deliberate contempt disentitle a contemnor to the benefit of doubt regarding good faith?
- Whether a sentence already mitigated on the grounds of youth and inexperience can be further reduced in review?
ORDER
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-This petition seeks to review the decision of this Court refusing to interfere with the order of the then High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore Seat, punishing the petitioner for contempt of that Court. This Court, however, reduced the sentence of six months' simple imprisonment to the period already undergone, arid the fine of Ids. 1,500 in default 3 months' further simple imprisonment to the fine of Rs.1,500 only and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
2. Only two grounds have been urged in support of the review.
3. Firstly, that the petitioner's case is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of S. M. Yousuf v.
4. S. K. Rahlm and others (PLD 1969SC77) and he is, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt as he acted in good faith and without any self-interest.
5. Secondly, that the punishment meted out to the petitioner is harsh.
6. None of the two grounds is available for review. As regards the first contention each case depends on its own particular fact and circumstances. The facts of the case under report have n application to the facts of the instant case. While in the instant, case there was a deliberate and serious act of contempt on the part of the petitioner, in the case under report it was doubtful whether the act alleged amounted to contempt. In the case under report it has been observed as follows: "The action of the Customs Authorities gives us the impres--sion that the delivery of the seized goods to the petitioner by the Customs Department officials was made, more in their anxiety to comply with the orders of the High Court rather than to defy it. They have reseized the goods in their belief that the order of the High Court had not placed any restriction on them to do so. The High Court in disposing of the contempt application has said that no restriction was placed on the Customs Authorities against reseizing of the goods if the requirements of law were fulfilled. When the High Court itself thinks that in reseizing the goods the Customs Authorities had purported to act in the exercise of their powers and no contempt was committed by them, it becomes impossible to agree with Mr. Brohi, the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court should feel differently, in a super--sensitive regard for the dignity of the superior Courts to see that their orders command absolute submission . . . . . In proceedings for contempt where the conduct of a person who has apparently defied the orders of the Court leaves room for doubt with regard to his intention and a belief is possible that he has acted either mistakenly or on wrong but honest notions of his rights, the benefit of doubt should ungrudgingly be given to him."
7. Besides, the case had already been reported and it was open to the petitioner to place it before this Court when it heard theft appeal.
8. So far as the second contention is concerned this Court, having regard to the fact that the petitioner was a junior pleader of only five years standing and was inexperienced in his profession, and his youthful exuberance was due to certain abnormal situation created by the girl's protests against the husband's attempt to take her away, considerably reduced the sentences.
9. There is no substance in the petition and it is, accordingly, dismissed.