| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1963 SLG 3122 = 1963 SLD 3122 = 1963 PLD 1 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Criminal Appeals Nos. 45, 103 and 104 of 1962, decided on 16th November 1962.
Presented By: A. R. Cornelius, C. J., S. A. Rahman, Fazle-Akbar, B. Z. Kaikaus and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ
Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1962 R. A. Jeremy Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Maqbul Ahmad Attorney for Appellant. M. B. Zaman Advocate Supreme Court instructed by; Ijaz Ali Attorney for
Respondent. Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 1962 Masum Shah Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Nazar Khan Attorney for Appellant. M. B. Zaman Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali Attorney for
Respondent No. 1. Nemo
Respondent No. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1962 S. Muhammad Shafi Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Shaukat Ali Khwaja Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Muhammad Nazar Khan Attorney for Appellant. M. B. Zaman Advocate Supreme Court instructed by 1jaz Ali Attorney for
Respondent. Dates of hearing : 22nd, 23rd and 24th October 1962.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 45, 103 and 104 of 1962, decided on 16th November 1962.
Presented By: A. R. Cornelius, C. J., S. A. Rahman, Fazle-Akbar, B. Z. Kaikaus and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ
Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1962 R. A. Jeremy Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Maqbul Ahmad Attorney for Appellant. M. B. Zaman Advocate Supreme Court instructed by; Ijaz Ali Attorney for
Respondent. Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 1962 Masum Shah Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Nazar Khan Attorney for Appellant. M. B. Zaman Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ijaz Ali Attorney for
Respondent No. 1. Nemo
Respondent No. 2. Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1962 S. Muhammad Shafi Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Shaukat Ali Khwaja Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Muhammad Nazar Khan Attorney for Appellant. M. B. Zaman Advocate Supreme Court instructed by 1jaz Ali Attorney for
Respondent. Dates of hearing : 22nd, 23rd and 24th October 1962.
Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 1962 G. S. GIDEON, ADVOCATE-Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE-Respondent Criminal Appeal No. 103 of 1962 Syed GHAZANFAR ALI. BOKHARY-Appellant Versus THE STATE, AND THE JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF WEST PAKISTAN -Respondents AND Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1962 Malik ABDUL LATIF-Appellant. Versus THE STATE-Respondent
Law:
Section:
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 16th March 1962, in Criminal Original No. 59 of 1961). Contempt of Court-Advocate assisting another Advocate, at hearing of Civil Revision, in High Court-Getting up and shout ing twice in loud voice "It is nonsense" - Held, to be contempt unless "uttered by insane person"-Advocates have "fullest latitude to act fearlessly and with self-respecting independence" but are expected to maintain dignity of Court regardless of shortcomings of individual presiding--[Advocate not insane but subject to epileptic fits]-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 84-[Oswald : "Contempt of Court", Third Edition, Contempt of Court --- "Criminal contempt" - Advocate during hearing of case in High Court getting up and shouting twice in loud voice "It is nonsence" Contempt-Jurisdiction of Courts of Record or Superior Courts to punish contempt by "summary processes" of attachment and committal-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 1 (2)-"Special" jurisdiction-Not exercised by virtue of S. 228 or other provision of Penal Code (XLV of 1860) or of provisions of Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-Scope of S. 228 does not extend to such "special" jurisdiction-Contempt of Courts Act (XII of 1926)-General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 3 (37b)-"Law"-Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 176 Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 123 - [Surendar Nath Bannerji v. The Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court at Fort William in Bengal 10 I A 171 ; Parashuram Detaram v. Emperor A I R 1945 P C 134 ; Bathina Ramkrishna Reddy v. State of Madras A I R 1952 S C 109 and Sukhdev Singh v. Hon. Chief Justice, S. Teja Singh and Hon. Judges of the Pepsu High Court at Patiala A I R 1954 S C 186 ref]. Contempt of Court--- Procedure-Special jurisdiction of Courts of Record and Superior Courts - Contempt in faciam curiae-Notice not necessary-Contempt to be "definitely stated" and opportunity to answer given-[Abdur Rashid v. The Crown and another (1954) 2 F C R 277 and Saadat Khiali v The State P L D…