Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: THE CROWN VS Respondent: KAZI MUHAMMAD TAQUI
P L D 1955 Sind 377
P L D 1955 Sind 377
(High Court Jurisdiction)
Before Muhammad Bachal, J
THE CROWN
versus
Kazi MUHAMMAD TAQUI
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 348 of 1954, decided on 2nd March, 1955.
Contempt of Court--‑Writing letter to Magistrate to release accsued on bail‑Contempt‑Intent to interfere with administra tion of justice not necessary‑Apology not unconditional‑Oppo nent sentenced.
Writing a letter to a Magistrate to release an accused on bail stating that the bearer of the letter, the wife of the accused was a poor person with small children, offends against the law of contempt. No intent to interfere with due course of justice need be proved.
Apology not being unconditional. Opponent was sent enced to one month's simple imprisonment.
Emperor v. Gajadar Prasad A I R 1939 All. 247 and District Magistrate of Sultanpur v. Ramjas Yadav A I R 1940 Oudh 178 ref.
S. Nasiruddin, for the Crown.
Chandnani, for Opponent.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD BACHAL, J.‑On 16th September, 1954 the opponent wrote a letter to Mr. Ansari, Sub‑Judge and First Class Magistrate Shahdadpur recommending that Alim who was one of the accused in a case under sections 380 and 411 P. P. C. fixed before him on that day, be released on bail. The letter was delivered by the wife of Alim to the Sub‑Judge who sent for her in open Court and rebuked her for bringing such a letter to him. The accused was not released on bail on that day. On 21st October, 1954 the Sub‑Judge wrote a letter to the Registrar of this Court for taking proceedings for contempt against the opponent.
The opponent admits that he wrote the letter which is reproduced in extenso.
"My dear Ansari,
Dear brother Aslam Alekum,
The bearer of this letter is poor person. She has small children. Her husband is in jail. She has surety. Kindly release him on bail and oblige. I hope you will show mercy to the poor man."
But he alleges that he had no intention to interfere with the administration of justice and that the letter did not tend to interfere with the administration of justice. The learned advocate for the opponent is unable to explain how private communication to a Magistrate during the pendency of the case before him for releasing an accused on bail interfering in the course of the administration of justice ceases to be contempt. In Emperor v. Gajadar Prasad (A I R 1939 All. 247) and District Magistrate of Sultanpur v. Ramjas Yadav (A I R 1940 Oudh 178), the persons who wioto such letters were adjudged as offending against the law of Contempt. No intent to interfere with the due course of justice need be proved. The question of intention is irrelevant in considering whether the offence has been committed. The apology is not unconditional, as he alleges that he had no intention to commit the contempt of the Court but if he has created that feeling by his letter, he apologises for this error of judgment. The Sub‑Judge in his affidavit alleges that the opponent sent him a word that H. E. the Governor and the Collector had received complaints against him. The oppo nent admits this but denies that this was with a view to harass him. Frequent instances of contempt of Courts of late have appeared in this Court. It is, therefore, necessary to award a sentence of imprisonment in this case. I, therefore, sentence the opponent to one month's S. I. under section 3 of the Con tempt of Courts Act.
A. H. Opponent sentenced.