Contempt of Courts Act, 1993

  1. Contempt proceedings — A statement attributed to Sardar  Attique Ahmad  Khan accused in Criminal Original No.2 and 3 of 1994 was published in three Daily newspapers — The statement amounted to scandalising and bring into hatred, ridicule and contempt the judiciary of Azad Jammu and Kashmir as a whole of which this Court is a part, and brought the administration of law into disrespect and disrepute  — The statement was issued in close proximity to the judgment delivered by this Court in five appeals by which AJK Civil Servants (Regularisation of ad hoc appointment) Act, 1992 was declared void being against the Interim Constitution Act. — The statement contained a pointed reference to that judgment and it was said in the same statement that it should not be allowed that in the ideological territory of Azad Jammu and Kashmir a large number of educated, patriotic persons dedicated to the ideology of accession to Pakistan may be guillotined .It also contained insinuations about the integrity of un-named Judges of AJK and about their religious beliefs. It further contained accusation that some of the Judges had pronounced judgments which were written in the houses of some political elements opposed to the present Government.  S. Ajaz Ali Gillani  v. Sardar Attique Ahmed Khan 1995 SCR 176 (A)
  2. Apology tendering of — Apology cannot be accepted as a matter of routine — Apology is not a defence in contempt matters — If Courts start accepting apology as a routine then commission of this offence would become a practice. Persons with evil designs who do not like fair dispensation of justice would attack the judiciary and Judges to further their ends: and when an action is taken they would bail themselves out by filing an apology. S. Ajaz Ali Gillani v. Sardar Attique Ahmed Khan 1995 SCR 176 (B)
  3. Judges cannot enter into public controversy and are unable to defend themselves. There is no doubt that the Courts have to show benevolence when apology is tendered but it is always in the circumstances of each case that the question of accepting an apology has to be decided. It has always to be seen that the apology is being sincerely tendered. In case of gross contempt an apology cannot be accepted as a matter of routine because it may encourage repetition of this offence. S. Ajaz Ali Gillani  v. Sardar Attique Ahmed Khan 1995 SCR 176 (C)
  4. Contemner found guilty of an offence under S.45 of the AJK Interim Constitution Act and section 4 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1993. S. Ajaz Ali Gillani  v. Sr. Attique Ah. 1995 SCR 176 (D)
  5. Proceeding of contempt of Court is an “inquiry” and is a sui generis proceeding and not bound by technicalities. S. Ajaz Ali Gillani  v. Sardar Attique Ahmed Khan 1995 SCR 176 (E)
  6. S. 403 (1) — “nemo debt bis vexari” — This Section is an amplification of the well known maxim of law “nemo debt bis vexari”. This principle does not rest on any doctrine of estoppel but embodies the well established rule of common law that a man may not be put twice in peril for the same offence — Punishment twice for the same offence is not justified. — Before this section can be invoked the following three conditions must be satisfied:-i    That the accused has been already tried for the offence charged against him;ii    That the trial was held by a Court of competent jurisdiction; and iii    That there was a judgment or order of acquittal of conviction. Noorullah v. Mst. Phullan & another 1995 SCR 396 (A)
  7. In this case the accused-respondents were tried and ultimately acquitted by a Court of competent jurisdiction of the charges levelled against them under sections 497, 498, 109 Penal Code. In the private complaint filed by the appellant the incident alleged against the accused-respondents is the same which took place in the year 1977. The charges levelled against the respondents are almost similar and inter-linked to those which were levelled in the year 1977 with the exception of one charge. Held: The accused-respondents cannot be vexed twice for the same incident or the occurrence for which they were tried by a competent Court of law and were ultimately acquitted. Noorullah v. Mst. Phullan & another 1995 SCR 396 (B)
  8. A wrong news item was published in respect of a person who has been a Judge of High Court as well as of this Court — The newspaper, therefore, before publishing any such news were expected to observe maximum care in reporting matters having tendency to cast reflection upon judicial system of the state — It is always said that contempt of Court becomes graver if false matter is attributed to the Court and that appears in press — We have ignored the lack of sense of responsibility shown by certain newspapers — Held: It is the duty of the Editors of the newspapers to ensure that if it is felt necessary to publish the Court proceedings or any order recorded by the Court it must be ensure that correct statement of fact as recorded by the Court is published in the newspaper. AJ&K Ehtesab Bureau v. Mujahid  Hussain Naqvi 2003 SCR 109 (A)
  9. Contempt proceedings are treated akin to criminal proceedings — However, a difference must be kept in mind that in criminal cases under different penal laws, other than laws relating to contempt matters, the entire onus is upon the prosecuting agency to prove charge as the presumption of innocence remains available to the accused person till conviction is recorded — Whereas in contempt matters notice is not issued in routine — But when prima facie it appears that some person has tried to lower down the prestige of the Court, issue notice in order to maintain the dignity and authority of the Court. AJ&K Ehtesab Bureau  v. Mujahid  Hussain Naqvi 2003 SCR 109 (C)
  10. The investigating officer, Ch. Muhammad Munir, D.S.P. and Raja Abdul Razzaq, A.I.G. are prima facie guilty of contempt of Court — However, since both of them have put themselves at the mercy of the Court and they are young officers, who prima facie are acting under the influence of their high-ups, we give them the benefit of doubt acquitting them of offence of contempt of Court — In future they would be careful and would see that the Court, be it an inferior or a superior Court must be obeyed in letters and spirit. M. Ajmal Khan & others v. Asif Shah 2003 SCR 164 (B)
  11. The newspapers should further direct their representatives to keep in view visible and discoverable news between the headlines and detailed contents — No news should be published on the desire of any individual without ascertaining true facts — This practice will minimize the occasion for issuing notice of contempt of Court to the representatives or the Editors of newspapers regarding any false or incorrect news relating to Court proceedings. AJ&K Ehtesab Bureau v. Mujahid  Hussain Naqvi 2003 SCR 109 (B)
  12. S. 4 — The learned Judge of the High Court has travelled beyond his jurisdiction while awarding costs of Rs. 20,000/- to be paid to the respondent by the department — None of the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act provide for paying costs to a person who is guilty of contempt of Courts Act — Held: The High Court committed a serious illegality while awarding costs — The impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. Azad Govt. v. Wali Muhammad 2003 SCR 218 (A) 
  13. — Section 7, The Contempt of Courts Act, 1993— Procedure for Supreme Court and High Court with regard to initiation of contempt of Court proceedings—scope of contempt jurisdiction of the Superior Courts—-Held: the Constitution confers jurisdiction on the Supreme Court and a High Court to punish any person who “abuses, interferes with or obstructs the process of the Court in any way or disobeys any order of the Court”, whereas, in general terms the Contempt of Courts Act, 1993 indicates the area of exercise of jurisdiction by the Courts in a contempt case. To disobey or disregard an order, direction or process of Court which a person is legally bound to obey, wilful breach of an undertaking given to a Court, any act intended to or tend to bring the authority of the Court or the administration of law into disrespect or disrepute and to obstruct, interfere, interrupt or prejudice the process of law or the due course of any judicial proceeding fall within the category of contempt of Court. Kh. M.Maqbool War v. Sardar M. Javed Ayoub 2022 SCR 1299 (C)
  14.   —section 3—read with Article 45 of the AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974 and O.XLVII, of AJK Supreme Court Rules, 1978—scope of the contempt law—the act of contempt of Court is not only confined to the Court proceedings, judgments or orders but it also includes the act of tending to bring the authority of a Court or the administration of law into disrespect, disrepute, or to interfere with or obstruct or interrupt or prejudice the process of law. Haji Javed Akram v. Ch. Muhammad Saeed 2019 SCR 816 (M)
  15.  —بنیادی مقاصد و اہمیت— قانون توہین عدالت محض کسی فرد یا جج کے تحفظ کے لیے  نہیں بنایا گیا ا ور نہ ہی یہ آئین کی منشاء کے مغائر ہے — قانون توہین عدالت نہ صرف نظام فراہمی انصاف   کےلیے ضروری ہے بلکہ اس قانون کا آئین میں دیے گئے بنیادی حقوق سے بھی گہرا رشتہ ہے۔ قانون کا بنیاد  یمقصد عدلیہ کے ادا رے کو اس کے فرائض منصبی کی انجام دہی کی نزاکتوں ا ور ضرورتوں کے مطابق  تحفظ فراہم کرنا ہے— اگر عدلیہ کو یہ تحفظ حاصل نہ ہو تو معاشرے کا کوئی بھی طاقتور گرو ہ یا فرد عدلیہ   کےفیصلوں کو غیر مؤثر کرد ے ۔ایسی صورت میں نظام فراہمی انصا ف نہ صرف مجروح ہو بلکہ مفلوج ہو کر  رہ
  16. جائے ۔ ) Robkar Adalat  v. Sardar Khalid Ibrahim Khan 2019 SCR 17  ( ب
error: Content is protected !!