YUSUF ALI KHAN vs ATTORNEY GENERAL OF PAKISTAN
The petitioner, a Barrister and Advocate, sought a review of a Supreme Court judgment that convicted him of contempt of court under the 1962 Constitution, sentencing him to two months' simple imprisonment and a fine. The petitioner's primary ground for review was an alleged misrecording in the judgment regarding his statement before the Court, specifically claiming he had not withdrawn the allegations made against the Chief Justice and other Judges in a petition to the President. The Court found that the petitioner had indeed submitted a signed statement expressing repentance and an unqualified apology, which the Court had previously accepted as an extenuating circumstance to mitigate his sentence. The Court held that the petitioner was attempting to retract his earlier apology after having benefited from it, and that his original allegations were false, malicious, and intended to scandalize the Court without any constitutional immunity. Finding no valid grounds to reopen the case, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petition, affirming that the petitioner's attempt to backtrack constituted further misconduct.
- Can a petitioner seek review of a contempt conviction by retracting a signed statement of apology previously accepted by the Court?
- Does a petition addressed to the President containing malicious allegations against the judiciary enjoy immunity under Article 128(5) of the 1962 Constitution?
- Is a signed statement of apology considered an extenuating circumstance in contempt proceedings?
- Article 123, Constitution of Pakistan 1962
- Article 128(5), Constitution of Pakistan 1962
1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-The petitioner, who is a Barrister and a practising Advocate, has been convicted by this Court in proceedings for contempt under Article 123 of the 1962-Con--stitution, and sentenced to simple imprisonment for two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, or, in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for 15 days, by its judgment dated the 18th of January 1972. He now seeks a review of that judgment, and the main ground urged is that it is incorrectly recorded in the judgment that in his statement before the Court, the petitioner had withdrawn as false all the allegations made by him against the Chief Justice and the Judges of this Court, in his application to the President, which formed the subject-matter of the contempt proceedings. The petitioner's typed statement, which is on record, was duly signed by him, and it is a futile attempt on his part to wriggle out of it. I his statement, whereby he expressed his repentance and unqualified apology, was considered by the Court as an extenuating circumstance for the award of the sentence to him for his action, which constituted grave contempt for having humiliated and scandalised this Court in full blast. The impression one gets is that he made that statement to express his sorrow and apology to soften the Court at that time for a lenient treatment, and having gained that object, he is now retracting from it in an endeavour to urge that the offensive application sent by him to the President contained allegations which were true and made in good faith, and that he is pro-- tected in that action by Article 128 (5) of the 1962-Constitution.
2. To say the least, the petitioner, by this somersault, is only adding insult to injury. His statement, referred to above, shows clearly that he withdrew all the allegations made by him in the application and expressed his sorrow for having written and despatched the same. The Court held that these allegations, which were false and malicious, were intended to malign and scandalise the learned Chief Justice and the Judges of this Court, and did not have any constitutional immunity. In fact, the President to whom the application was addressed, had himself initiated the contempt action against the petitioner.
3. No valid ground is disclosed to reopen this case. The review petition stands dismissed.