Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 204

Law: Contempt of Courts Act (XII of 1926)

Section: 3

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 204 read with Contempt of Courts Act (XII of 1926), S. 3 Contempt of superior Court-Removing detenu out of his possession by contemner and keeping him in an outlaw's house after having learnt of High Court's order directing bailiff to produce detenu before Court, torturing detenu, and threatening him-One accused an Assis tant Sub-Inspector of Police, a young-man, inexperienced, and: appearing amenable to reform-Accused, geld, guilty of contempt of Court, deserving heavy punishment, yet for having tendered unquali fied apology and other mitigating circumstances including age, character, and antecedents, discharged of contempt conditionally- Accused bound down to commit no offence and be of good behaviour for six months and to report to O. S. D. of High Court every two months-Probation of Offenders Ordinance (XLV of 1960), S. 4. The charges were that when an allegation had been made that the detenu was being tortured and kept fn illegal confinement by respondent and he had learnt that a bailiff had been deputed to recover and produce him (the detenu) in the High Court, he, in order to frustrate the process of the High Court and with a view further to defy the orders passed by it, moved him out of the Police Station and lodged him in the House of another person allegedly an outlaw. The result was that, in order to cover up his above .conduct, he subsequently took a false position in the Court that the detenu was not in his custody. And before the detenu was produced before the O. S. D. of the High Court, he (the accused) gave him threats and dis suaded him from telling the truth about his toture and illegal detention and also asked him to pay bribe. The charges against the other accused were that on the asking of the A. S. I., he, knowing that the detenu had been given beating in his presence, detained him in his house ; when the High Court had already directed his production in Court and thus he also frustrated the process of the High Court at the instance of the A. S. I. He was also charged of having twice threatened the complainant party (who were in attendance in connection with these proceedings) outside the…