10. a true statement made in good faith
respecting the conduct of a Judge in a matter not connected with the
performance of his judicial functions.
COMMENTARY
Counsel addressed a
letter to the Chief Justice of the High Court in which contemptuous language
used against the judge. Court sentenced the contemner. PLD 2006
Application for Contempt
of Court on the ground that the authorities did not honour the direction of
High Court. High Court on the ground that the authority was not under
obligation to approach a private foreign institute for issuance of a
certificate, dismissed the application. PLD 2006
Contempt proceedings
could not be initiated on the basis of verbal notice to the defendant about
order of Court. 2002 CLC 468.
Mere non-compliance of
an order, in the absence of contumacy, would not amount to contempt of Court.
PLD 2002 SC 1033.
Wilful breach of valid
undertaking given to a Court amounts to a contempt of Court u/S. 3 of Contempt
of Court Act, 1976. 2004 PCr.LJ 1890.
Contempt of Court by the
counsel who had addressed a letter to the Chief Justice of the High Court in
which contemptuous language had been used against the Judge in respect of the
manner in which the Judge had conducted the case and dealt with the counsel
since the time the matter had come on the list of the Judge. Court, in
circumstances, sentenced the contemner advocate to undergo simple imprisonment
of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- the State vs. Muhammad Akbar
Cheema Advocate. PLD 2006 Lah. 193.
Appellant started
shouting in Court room. Appellants/ advocates were directed to stop interfere
in proceedings but they did not stop and used contemptuous language against
judges. Appellants were found guilty of contempt of Court. Held:
Appellant/Advocate has placed himself at mercy of Supreme Court stating that he
has highest regard for superior judiciary of
Perusal of contemners'
reply to notice of contempt would indicate that he made observations which were
uncalled for. Respondent was obliged to follow remand order in letter and
spirit which he failed to do. High Court instead of framing charge under the
law of contempt thought it proper to recommend action against respondent
(Presiding Officer Labour Court) on administrative side, in as much as, that
respondent was dismissed on 19.9.1992 after inquiry on corruption charges when
he was on the strength of High Court as Addl. District and Sessions Judge.
Respondent thereafter managed to obtain dismissal order set aside from the then
Chief Minister but so far he is not recognized as judicial officer by High
Court and was not allowed to resume duty. Government of Sindh thereafter,
posted him as
Representation by State
Counsel in contempt proceedings was not permissible under law. PLJ 2000 Kar.
284 = PLD 2000
No bar exists in moving
the Court in order to bring a case of Contempt of Court to the notice of Court
for taking action against an alleged contemner or contemners. Such right,
however, cannot be misused with malicious intention to cause harassment to
others. PLJ 2000 Kar. 284 = PLD 2000
Where petitioners
were found guilty of contravention of
cl. (1) of Sindh Foodgrains (Licensing Control) Order, 1957, licenses of
petitioners were rightly cancelled and contempt application against alleged
contemner who was Rationing Controller and Licensing Authority was dismissed
with costs. PLJ 2000 Kar. 284 = PLD 2000
It is settled law that
tendering of unqualified apology amounts to admission of charge. PLJ 2000 SC
1729.
Learned counsel
reiterated that unqualified apologies tendered by their clients are in
alternative and without prejudice to submissions made by them on merits. Such
apologies do not qualify for acceptance in light of well settled principles laid
down by Superior Courts in this behalf i.e. (a) apology must be offered at
earliest stage of contempt proceedings and may not be postponed till fag-end of
proceedings; (b) apology must be unconditional, unreserved and unqualified; (c)
apology should not only appear but must also satisfactorily represent sincere
and genuine remorse and should not be half-hearted or mere formality; and (d)
contemner should not endeavour to justify his conduct. Respondents had
specifically disputed charges levelled against them, had unequivocally pleaded
their innocence and had endeavoured to justify their conduct even at fag-end of
proceedings. Therefore, their apologies are not accepted. Awarded simple
imprisonment for one month each and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each. PLJ 2000 SC
1729.
Appellant's plea, that
truth is complete defence and was available to him which right was scuttled by
not permitting him to lead evidence, was rejected by observing that appellant
had courage to attribute dishonest and ulterior motive to Hon'ble Chief Justice
as well as two other Judges of High Court. According to him, action in inquiry
proceedings was being taken on the ground of annoyance of Hon'ble Chief Justice
and two Judges. Reasons given for so-called annoyance of one Judge was that
about 30 years earlier a writ petition was filed against the relations of
Hon'ble Judge which was decided three decades earlier. As regards the annoyance
of second Judge, Appellant stated that he proceeded strictly in accordance with
law without showing any favour to any side in Election when he was associated
with election duty, therefore, his strict observance annoyed Hon'ble Judge.
Held: Both these clauses are not even remotely related to allegations which he
has made in his contempt application. Although he has tried to malign Hon'ble
Chief Justice and Judges by further appending copies of Reference made under
Art. 209 of Constitution yet their presence as annexures of what is contained
in them is totally alien to remarks and allegations made in his contempt application.
Therefore, ground or defence of truth is not available to him. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (
Observed that even if he
felt choked by so called sectarian prejudice and bias entertained by the then
Registrar of Court, who, according to Appellant influenced Inquiry Officer,
grievances could have been voiced through a Constitutional petition without
there being any need to throw invectives at Chief Justice and Judges of High
Court. Held: that this mode was adopted to satiate ill-founded belief entertained
by appellant against respondents and two other Judges that it was due to them
that sufferings had been showered on him and through sinister insinuation he
wanted to hit back but in doing so he incurred wrath of Institution. PLJ 2002
Cr.C. (
Directing appellant to
lead defence would have aggravated contempt committed on the face of Court as
it has been held by learned single judge that it was an attempt to further
scandalize Court and for reasons given his application was rightly dismissed.
PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (
Respondents conducted
departmental enquiry and issued him a show-cause notice, against which
petitioner filed a writ petition which was disposed of by High Court.
Department, afterwards dismissed him from service. Appeal was also dismissed.
No case of contempt of Court was made out against respondents. PLJ 2004 Cr.C. (
In fact it is clearly in
derogation of the judgment of High Court as well as of Supreme Court, which
tantamounts to interference in judgment of Courts and fall within the scope of
contempt of Court. Held: Non-observance of orders of the Superior Courts would
create a chaos, which brings a situation to minimize the state concept of
sovereign Islamic state minus a strong and independent judiciary is
unimaginable. If judiciary of the country is stripped off its power, the
country would cease to exist as free nation. This principle is specifically
contained in our constitution by virtue of Preamble Arts. 2-A, 4, 5 (2), 23,
24, 25, 37 and 38. PLJ 2004 Cr.C. (
Plea that
"Pensionary Benefits" does not include "Retirement
Benefits", as the latter is wider in its scope than former, is erroneous.
In the scheme itself both phrases viz. "Pension Benefits" and
"Retirement Benefits" have been used as "Synonymous". One
does not get "pension" while he is still in service. Likewise
"Retirement Benefits" are only available after one actually retires.
In other words, in both circumstances, the right to pension and other
retirement benefits accrues after one ceases to be an employee. Term
"Pension" is a collective name of all benefits an employee gets under
various heads. All are generally known as "Pensionary Benefits" or
"Retirement Benefits". They are the same. In general sense, the term
"pension" denotes to a grant after release from service. Case not fit
for initiating contempt proceedings against the concerned
employees of the Bank as they acted under the bona fide impression that the
petitioners were not entitled to said amount. PLJ 2004 SC 839.
Legal Course would be to
proceed in the matter under S. 154 Cr.P.C. as and when information about
commission of a cognizable offence was provided. Injuries on the person of
petitioner's son having not been denied, first of all local police must proceed
in the matter under S. 154 Cr.P.C., and thereafter, if information provided by
complainant was found to be false, case should be cancelled and proceedings
against him be initiated in accordance with law as directed by High Court's
order of specified date. In case of non-compliance of present order,
proceedings under contempt of Court would be initiated. PLJ 2004 Cr.C. (
It is settled principle
of law that contempt is always between the contemner and the Court. 2005 YLR
337.
It is settled principle
of law that Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in character. He who
seeks equity must come in the Court with clean hands. 2005 YLR 337 = PLJ 2005
Lah. 559.
Jurisdiction of High
Court or Supreme Court is to be exercised either on its own information or as
laid before it by any person and it shall be thereafter that High Court may
exercise jurisdiction in respect of Contempt of Courts subordinate to it, as it
exercises in respect of contempt of itself. PLJ 2005 Cr.C. (
No action was taken
against accused/doctor because he was brother of Secretary Health and being elder brother of
accused doctor, he protected him and retained his brother in service. Act of
respondent Secretary Health tantamounts to gross contempt of High Court and Supreme
Court as he was guilty of frustrating order of High Court and Supreme Court.
Conduct of Secretary Health in sending summary to Governor to claim remission
of sentence awarded to his brother by Court is cunning attempt on his part of
frustrating order of High Court and Supreme Court. Apart from committing
illegal omissions and mala fides, Secretary Health also caused great loss to
State Exchequer by paying convicts salaries for specific period. Apology
tendered by Secretary Health does not reflect sincere and genuine repentence
and was half hearted. Secretary Health was found to be guilty of gravest form
of contempt and was convicted and sentenced to 3 months simple imprisonment and
a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default thereof, he would undergo simple imprisonment
for one month. Failure of Senior Superintendent of Police to arrest convicts
despite warrants issued by High Court amounts to shirking statutory legal
duties. Act of Senior Superintendant was being taken as a sabotage to judicial
decisions of Superior Courts. Senior Superintendent of Police was convicted of
contempt of Court and sentenced to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment with
further direction to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- & in default thereof to
undergo 7 days simple imprisonment. Advocate General being very senior Advocate
and having remained as Advocate General for 2/3 times before, instead of coming
to aid of criminal administration of justice and to maintain dignity
of Courts opted
to become defence counsel of contemners. Advocate General while doing so
was definitely on the wrong side of law. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (
4. Punishment.--Whoever, commits contempt of
Court or abets the commission of contempt of Court may be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may
extend to five thousand rupees, or with both:
Provided that, on being
satisfied that the accused, whether after defending himself or without offering
any defence, has purged himself of the contempt of Court, the Court may
discharge the accused or remit his sentence.
COMMENTARY
Contempt of Court. Legal
practitioner addressing letter to President of Pakistan and deliberately
levelling therein maliciously false allegations against judges of Superior
Courts. Action, held, constituted gross contempt. Contemner, in circumstances,
sentenced to 2 months S.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000. PLD 1972 SC 115.
Contempt of Court. Judge
sitting in his own cause in matter of contempt not prevented from doing so.
Participation of maligned judge in contempt proceedings. Not forbidden by Holy
Quran and Sunnah. Accusing judge of judicial misconduct in hearing of a
contempt case. Nohting short of repetition of contempt. Appointment of judges.
Press and public not to arrogate to themselves right of commenting as to
suitability or otherwise of judge. Contemnors sentenced to imprisonment. PLD
1973 L 1.
No further jurisdiction
has been conferred by those provisions upon a Court seized of such matter.
However, in Muhammad Sabir Khan's case PLD 2002 SC 303 Supreme Court has laid
down that such invalidation of property could be achieved through contempt
proceedings by invoking provisions of O. XXXIX, R. 2 and S. 151 C.P.C.
therefore, there was no reason to doubt competence and jurisdiction of
Judge-in-Chamber to invalidate registered sale-deed relating to property in
question although advisability or otherwise of adoption of that course in
present case can be assailed on the ground that appellant being transferee of
land in question, had been condemned unheard of Judge in Chamber. Non service
of appellant was brought to notice of
Court that present petitioner had not been served. Appellant was thus
admittedly condemned unheard. Division Bench found it advisable and prudent to
leave parties to have recourse to
Right of appeal whether
available to affected party. Judge-in-Chamber had although decided not to
proceed against concerned persons regarding alleged commission of contempt of
Court by them yet he had invalidated registered sale-deed through same order,
thus matter before Judge-in-Chamber had not remained confined to issue of
contempt of Court alone, which was restricted between Court and contemner, but
had travelled much beyond that and had seriously affected rights, of a party to
said contempt petition over a valuable piece of property. Person so affected
thus, had a right of appeal in terms of S. 10 of Contempt of Court Act 1976.
PLJ 2003 Cr.C. (
Bailiff when deputed to
recover detenue while exercising powers under Section 491 Cr.
P.C. or under
Art. 199 of Constitution of
Pakistan acts as representative of High Court. Report submitted by bailiff in
this case cannot be dis-believered. Respondent has 30 years of service to his
credit, but mere fact of long service, in nature of contempt he has committed,
cannot be treated lightly and rather after such a long service respondent
should have been more careful instead what he has done. Unconditional apology
is no defence to charge of contempt of Court and whenever indulgence is shown
that is by way of grace and concession. Contemner cannot claim acquittal or
discharge of notice as matter of right on strength of unqualified apology and
such apology does not ipso facto purge offence. Held : Accused, by detaining
bailiff for four (4) hours in reporting room of police station has committed
naked and unprecedented contempt of Court. Inspector Contemner sentenced to one
month S.I. and fine of Rs. 5,000/-. PLJ 2000 Cr.C. (Lah.) 662.
5. Jurisdiction.--(1) A High Court or the
Supreme Court, on its own information or an information laid before it by any
person, may take cognizance of an alleged commission of contempt of the Court.
(2) The Supreme Court shall have the power to
take cognizance of any contempt of itself or any Judge of the Supreme Court
alleged to have been committed anywhere and a High Court shall have the power
to take cognizance of any contempt not itself or of any Judge thereof, or of
any other High Court or of any Judge thereof alleged to have been committed
within the territorial limits of its jurisdiction.
(3) A High Court shall exercise the same
jurisdiction in respect of contempts of Courts subordinate to it or to any
other High Court as it exercises in respect of contempts of itself.
(4) Nothing contained herein shall affect the
power of any Court to punish any offence of contempt under the Pakistan Penal
Code (Act XLV of 1860).
COMMENTARY
Object of awarding
punishment to a person for Contempt of Court is two-fold, namely that he should
be sentenced for violating the law and secondly a deterrence to the like minded
persons who without caring for the consequences do wrongs and violate the law.
PLD 2002 Lah. 247.
Where the order passed
by High Court was very clear and could be understood by any person who had
passed the High School Examination in
An aplogy does not
furnish a complete defence to a charge of contempt of Court. PLD 2002 Lah. 247.
According to Black's Law
Dictionary "Punishment" means any fine, penalty, or confinement
inflicted upon a person by the authority of the law and the judgment and
sentence of a Court, for some crime or offense committed by him, or for his
omission of a duty enjoined by law, a deprivation of property or some right,
but does not include a civil penalty redounding to the benefit of an
individual, such as a forfeiture of interest. Black's Law Dictionary 6th
Edition, p. 1234.
Suit for permanent
injunction was filed by petitioner. Temporary injunction granted. Suit was
disposed of on ground of undertaking that the plaintiff under taken would not
be dispossessed illegally. Grievance application was filed regarding Contempt
of Court. Violation of undertaking trial Court instead of acting upon provision
of law framed issues. Matter was referred to High Court. Question of reference
of matter. Jurisdiction. Held: Jurisdiction of High Court or Supreme Court is
to be exercised either on its own information or upon information as laid
before it by any person and it shall be thereafter that High Court may exercise
jurisdiction in respect of Contempt of Courts subordinate to it as exercises in
respect of Contempt of itself. Criminal miscellaneous dismissed. PLJ 2005 Cr.C.
(
6. Bars to taking cognizance.--(1) No High Court
shall take cognizance under this Act of a contempt alleged to have been
committed in respect of a Court subordinate to it where the said contempt is an
offence punishable under the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860).
(3) No Court shall take cognizance of a contempt
of Court arising from an averment made in due course in appellate, revisional
or review proceedings, till such proceedings have been finalized and no further
appeal, revision or review lies.
(4) No Court shall take cognizance of a contempt
of Court arising from an averment made before the Chief Justice of a High
Court, the Chief Justice of Pakistan, the Supreme Judicial Council, the Federal
Government or a Provincial Government,--
(a) until the petition to which the averment
relates has been finally disposed of; or
(b) otherwise than under the orders of the
Chief Justice of the High Court, the Chief Justice of Pakistan, the Supreme
Judicial Council, the Federal Government or the Provincial Government, as the
case may be.
7. Procedure for Supreme Court and High
Court.--(1) Whenever, it appears to the Supreme Court or a High Court that there
is sufficient ground for believing that a person has committed contempt of
Court and that
it is necessary in the interest of effective
administration of justice to proceed against him, it shall make an order in
writing to that effect setting forth the substance of the charge against the
accused, and, unless he is present in Court, shall require by means of an
appropriate process that he appears or be brought before it to answer the
charge.
(2) The Court shall inform the accused of the
ground on which he is charged with contempt of Court and call upon him to show
cause why he should not be punished.
(3) The Court, after holding such inquiry and
taking such evidence as it deems necessary or is produced by the accused in his
own defence and after hearing the accused and such other person as it deems
fit, shall give a decision in the case:
Provided that, in any
such proceedings before the Supreme Court or High Court, any finding given in
its own proceedings by the Supreme Judicial Council about the nature of an
averment made before it, that is relevant to the requirement of clause (vi) of
the provision to Section 3, shall be conclusive evidence of the nature of such
averment.
(4) If contempt of Court is committed in the view
or presence of the Court, the Court may cause the offender to be detained in
custody and, at any time before rising of the Court on the same day, may
proceed against him in the manner provided for in the preceding sub-sections.
Explanation.--Notwithstanding
anything contained in clause (x) of the proviso to section 3, in any proceeding
under this sub-section, it shall not be open to the offender to take up a plea
of truth of the statement for making which he is proceeded against.
(5) If any case referred to in sub-section (4) cannot
be finally disposed of on the same day, the Court shall order the release of
the offender from custody either on bail or on his own bond.
8. Transfer of
proceedings for reasons personal to the Judge.--(1) Where, in a case in which a
Judge has made an order under sub-section (1) of Section 7, not being a case
referred to in sub-section (4) of that section, the alleged contempt of Court
involves scandalization personal to such Judge and is not scandalization of the
Court a whole or of all the Judges of the Court, the Judge shall forward the
record of the case and such comments, if any, as he deems fit to make, to the
Chief Justice of the Court.
(2) On receipt of the papers mentioned in
sub-section (1), the Chief Justice, after inviting, if he deems fit, further
comments, if any, from the Judge first taking cognizance of the offence and
making such inquiry in such manner as he deems fit, shall pass orders
specifying which one of the following hear the case--
(a) another Judge, which, if the Chief
Justice so orders, may be the Chief Justice;
(b) a Bench of Judges set up by the Chief
Justice, of which the Judge first taking cognizance of the offence is not a
member;
and the case shall then
be heard accordingly.
(3) If, at any stage of a case in which the Chief
Justice has passed an order under clause (a) of sub-section (2), the Chief
Justice is of opinion that, in the interests of justice, the case shall be
transferred to another Judge, he may pass an order accordingly, and the case
shall then be heard by such other Judge.
(4) When, in pursuance of an order under
sub-section (2), the Judge first taking cognizance of the case is not hearing
the case,--
(a) the other Judge or, as the case may be,
the Bench of Judges hearing the case may invite or receive any further comments
from the Judge first taking cognizance of the offence and shall call and hear
any witnesses whom such Judge desires to be examined; and
(b) all documents furnished by the Judge
first taking cognizance of the offence shall be treated as evidence in the case
and such Judge shall not be required to appear to give evidence.
(5) When in a case the first cognizance of the
offence has been taken by the Chief Justice, the functions of the Chief Justice
under sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) shall be performed by a Bench of Judges
composed of the two next most senior Judges available.
9. Proceedings in camera and prohibition of
publication of proceedings.--In case of proceedings for transfer of a hearing
under Section 8 or of any proceedings in which truth is pleaded as a defence in
terms of clause (vi) of the provision to Section 3, the Court, if it deems fit
in the public interest, may hear the case or any part thereof in camera and
prohibit the publication of the proceedings of the case or any part thereof.
10. Appeal and limitation for appeal.--(1) From
an original order passed by the High Court under this Act an appeal shall lie,
if the order is passed by a Single Judge, to a Division Bench, and if it is
passed by a Bench of two or more Judges, to the Supreme Court.
(2) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from
an order passed by a Division Bench of a High Court in appeal against an order
passed by a Single Judge.
[(2A) An intra-Court appeal shall lie against the
issuance of a show-cause notice or an original order including an interim order
passed by a Bench of the Supreme Court in any case, including a pending case,
to a larger Bench consisting of all the remaining available Judges of the Court
within the country:
Provided that in the event
the impugned show-cause notice or order has been passed by half or more of the
Judges or the Court, the matter shall, on the application of an aggrieved
person, be put up for re-appraisal before the full Court:
Provided further that
the operation of the impugned show-cause notice or order shall remain suspended
until the final disposal of the matter in the manner hereinbefore,
provided"; and]
[Repeated:
Provided further that
the operation of the impugned show-cause notice or order shall remain suspended
until the final disposal of the matter in the manner hereinbefore
provided".]
(3) An appeal under
sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be filed--
(a) in a case of an appeal to a Bench of the
High Court, within thirty days; and
(b) in the case of an appeal to the Supreme
Court, within sixty days, from the date of the order appealed against.
[(4) An intra-Court appeal or application for
re-appraisal shall be filed within thirty days from the date of show-cause
notice or the order, as the case may be.]
COMMENTARY
Contempt of Court.
Appellant/convict, a barrister at law. If a Judge is under an obligation under
circumstances not to hear the case it means that litigant had a corresponding
right for transfer of his case and he commits no contempt by informing of the
Court of the right to which he is entitled unless there was something insulting
or offensive in the tone or manner of his address to the Court. Law of contempt
exhaustively examined. Conviction and sentence of 7 days awarded by the LHC,
set aside. PLJ 1977 SC 449.
Single Judge did not
feel inclined to move any further in the matter nor any charge was framed
therefore, no appeal under S. 10 Contempt of Court Act 1976, was maintainable.
PLJ 2003
Casual leave by
appellant during pendency of matter in question. Competent Authority having
granted leave to appellant on his request, justification or otherwise of same
was not open to any scrutiny in contempt of Court proceedings. No mala fide
could be attributed to appellant while deciding question of non-compliance of
order. PLJ 2002 SC 1263.
Material placed on
record and attending circumstances would show that appellant was not guilty of any contumacy and delay in
submission of report was caused by circumstances not fully within his control
and his conduct did not constitute contempt of Court. Impunged judgment of
Division Bench was set aside and notice of contempt issued to appellant was
discharged. PLJ 2002 SC 1263.
Appellant being honest
judicial officer who had 27 years meritorious service in Provincial Judiciary
with un-blemished record, there was no reason to presume or hold that he would
think of showing disrespect to orders of Supreme Court. PLJ 2002 SC 1263.
No findings of Court
that facts as stated by appellant were factually wrong or that there was any
contumacy on his part based on ulterior motives or mala fides. Appellant was
not found to have any personal interest in the matter and thus, had no reason
to delay the making of report with a view to benefit any of parties in case.
Matter on which report was called being delicate one, appellant could not make
any report unless he had consulted Judges of High Court who had dealt with case
who only knew factual position. Concerned Judge had advised him to seek further
time for submission of report so that proper reply based on facts could be
submitted. Appellant in no manner would be deemed to be guilty of contumacy or
to have shown any disrespect or dealt with case casually as found by Division
Bench. PLJ 2002 SC 1263.
Contempt of Court based on defiance or violation of a judicial order in nature of temporary injunction by a party whereby such party was restrained from acting in a particular manner but inspite of service of notice or having come to know of passing of such order, acts in a manner to alter position to his advantage so as to frustrate temporary injunction and an act of mere non-submission of a report called for by Court by an officer of Court. Distinction drawn and illustrated. In former case, Court would take strict view and mere act of defiance of judicial order would by itself justify raising of presumption that doer of act was guilty of contempt of Court unless he proves otherwise whereas in latter case, it has to be determined on application of judicial mind as to whether appellant deliberately did not submit report on account of having personal interest in any of parties to cause damage to the other party in case in which report was called or had any personal interest which if proved or established would make act of non-submission of report mala fide. In absence of any of these facts and element of contumacy, his conduct could not be held to have suffered from mala fides or contempt of Court. PLJ 2002 SC 1263.