CJDA 38

JUDGMENT SHEET
LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Criminal Appeal No. 909 2013

(Muhammad Asif Nadeem v. District Police Officer, etc.)

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing: 31.07.2013

Appellant by: Mr. M. Baleegh-uz-Zaman Chaudhry,

Advocate.

Respondents by: Mr. Saeed Ahmad Sheikh, Additional

Prosecutor-General for the State.

Ali Baqar Najafi, J.: This appeal is directed against the

judgment dated 01.07.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge, Toba Tek Singh, whereby the appellant was convicted under

section 228, PPC and imposed a fine of Rs. 200/- or in default of

payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the filing of this appeal are that on

01.07.2013, the learned Presiding Officer was hearing a civil revision

when the appellant interrupted the proceedings and started addressing

the court by using inappropriate words in a loudly voice alleging that the

court has not decided the petition under section 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C. filed

by the appellant by watching his interest. The court informed him that

after hearing the said revision petition he will be heard but the appellant
 Criminal Appeal No. 909/2013 2

continued using inappropriate language in the court. Consequently, after

the proceedings, he was issued a show cause notice through the

Stenographer Mr. Muhammad Masood Ahmad but the appellant refused

to accept the same and also declined to file any reply to the show cause

notice. He also threatened that he would see to it that how the court

continues to work. After that, the appellant escaped from the courtroom.

Since the occurrence was witnessed by M/s. N. A. Raza, Muhammad

Tariq Gujjar and Sardar Muhammad Iqbal Dogar Advocates, therefore,

no further evidence was needed and then the court proceeded to convict

the appellant as described and mentioned above. Hence, the present

appeal before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is apologetic

and throws himself at the mercy of the Court that he regrets his conduct

and undertakes that this will never be repeated; that the appellant holds

the courts at the highest esteem and respect them with the bottom of his

heart; that the impugned judgment was passed in a hasty manner without

observing the procedure as neither any witness was recorded nor any

time was given to the appellant to put his defence; that the appellant

being a professional lawyer will suffer badly if the conviction is not set

aside; that the appellant has not insulted the Presiding Officer or caused

interruption in the judicial proceedings as he simply asked the court in a

respectful manner to decide his petition filed under section 22-A/22-B,

Cr.P.C. expeditiously; that no insulting words were ever used as

observed by the learned trial court; that tone of the appellant may have

caused annoyance to the learned Presiding Officer, which was never

 Criminal Appeal No. 909/2013 3

aimed at delinquent conduct to the court. Lastly, submits that it is the

common practice that the lawyers, with the permission of the court,

interfere and ask or inform the court regarding some emergent matters

which do not, by any stretch of imagination, can possibly constitute any

offence, hence prays for setting aside of the impugned judgment.

4. Conversely, the learned Additional Prosecutor-General submits

that the appellant was granted time to file reply to the show cause notice

but he opted not to file any reply; that the appellant, on the other hand,

challenged the authority of the court, which is not acceptable and hence,

prays for dismissal of the appeal.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

available record.

6. The appellant straightaway lays himself at the mercy of this Court

and has surrendered himself unconditionally by submitting that any

punishment given by this Court will be accepted to him and begs for a

lenient view. However, this appears to be a serious matter, in which

prestige of the court is involved, therefore, the appeal will be decided on

its merits.

7. A lawyer cannot take the advantage of his position and does not

enjoy a licence to interrupt the judicial proceedings, whenever he

desires. He should be mindful of the fact that prestige of the court is a

common object of both Bar and the Bench. In case the authority of the

court is challenged, a lawyer will obviously be the immediate victim.

 Criminal Appeal No. 909/2013 4

8. After having said that, this Court has noticed that the impugned

judgment was passed in a hasty manner without recording the statements

of even lawyers, present in the court. No proper time even till rising of

the court was granted to the appellant to present his defence and explain

the circumstances as well as the reasons behind his action. It is

commonly observed that during the proceedings of a case, lawyers tend

to address the clerk or the court while somewhat halting or interrupting

the proceedings temporarily on account of some emergency or on

anticipation of an immediate response by the court. However, if the court

does not permit, the lawyers should wait until the proceedings are over.

It is a common experience that some lawyers adopt the high tones while

addressing the court, which may cause annoyance to the Presiding

Officer, so they should be careful. Even otherwise, it is admitted that

proceedings of the case continued but the appellant kept on using the

words.

9. Seemingly in the judgments on the subject, it has been recently

held in the case of Rab Nawaz v. The State [2011 SCMR 1485] that

provisions of section 228, PPC are attracted to a case involving insult or

interruption during a judicial proceeding but in the instant case, the

insulting words are not stated and admitted no interruption in the

proceedings had taken. Similarly, in the case of Fayyaz Hussain v. Tariq

Mehmood Iqbal Khan [2006 YLR 1442], it is held that seeking

adjournments does not constitute an offence under section 228, PPC. In

the case of Jahangir Akhtar v. The State [2005 MLD 613], word ‘Ziadti’
 Criminal Appeal No. 909/2013 5

used to inform the court with passion and sentiment is not held as an

offence under section 228, PPC.

10. As per case reported as Haji Khawar Saleem v. The State [2000

SCMR 1856], procedure under section 480, Cr.P.C. may be followed by

the court and in the judgment titled Muhammad Mushtaq v. The State

reported as PLD 2003 S.C. 19, the court can proceed under sections 228

and 496, PPC or under section 480 or 482, Cr.P.C. In Agha Siraj Khan

Durrani v. The State reported as 2000 P.Cr.L.J. 1329, the complaint can

be lodged by the concerned court or its superior court.

11. In my humbly view, in this case the benefit of doubt goes in

favour of the appellant as neither the witnesses were recorded nor

enough time was granted to the appellant to file reply to the show cause

notice and put up his defence. The required procedure was not adopted.

Therefore, I am inclined to grant the benefit of doubt to the appellant as

the exact action of interruption or insult was not explained as required

under section 481(2), Cr.P.C.

12. In this view of the matter, this appeal is allowed, the impugned

judgment dated 01.07.2013 passed by the learned trial court is set aside

and the appellant is acquitted of the charge.

(Ali Baqar Najafi)

Judge
Approved for reporting

Judge

irshad