Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: STATE VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD AKRAM SHEIKH, ADVOCATE
1997 S C M R 985
1997 S C M R 985
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Muhammad Munir Khan and Mir Hazar Khan Khoso, JJ
STATE‑‑‑Petitioner
versus
MUHAMMAD AKRAM SHEIKH, ADVOCATE‑‑‑Respondent
Criminal Original Petition No. 14 of'1995, decided on 9th July, 1995.
Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.204‑‑‑Contempt of Court ‑‑‑Show cause notice‑‑‑One statement made by respondent not only tended to scandalizing the Judges of Supreme Court in relation to their office but was also calculated to impair public confidence in the independence, impartiality and, integrity of Supreme Court and its Judges which constituted contempt of gravest kind‑‑ Other statement made by respondent tended to interfere with, obstruct and prejudice the process of law or that due course of the judicial proceedings i.e. contempt of Court proceedings pending in Supreme Court and constituted naked contempt‑‑‑Respondent after having been informed of the grounds on which he was charged with the contempt of Court was consequently called upon to show cause why he should not be punished under S.4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976 on two counts.
Nizam Ahmed, Advocate for Respondent (in person).
Date of hearing: 9th July, 1995.
ORDER
Muhammad Akram Sheikh, respondent, present in person admits to have made statement (Mark 'A/1') published in daily Nawa‑i‑Waqt on 17‑3‑1995. He, however, has disputed the correctness of the statement (Mark 'A') attributed to him published in daily Jang dated 20‑11‑1994. After going through the aforesaid statements of the respondent and the written reply filed by him today, it appears to us that there are sufficient grounds for believing that he has committed contempt of Court and it is necessary in the interest of effective administration of justice to proceed against him under the Contempt of Court Act, 1976.
2. The substance of charges against him firstly is that he on 20‑11‑1994, while commenting on the decision of this Court given in Sabir Shah's case stated:‑‑
which not only tends to scandalizing the Judges of this Court in relation to their office but is also calculated to impair public confidence in the independence, impartiality and integrity of this Court and its Judges which constitutes contempt of gravest kind.
Secondly, he on 17‑3‑1995, while expressing his opinion in the newspaper on contempt proceedings pending in this Court stated that:‑‑
This statement tends to interfere with, obstruct and prejudice the process of law or the due course of the judicial proceedings i.e., contempt of Court proceedings pending in this Court, and constitutes naked contempt.
3. The accused is present in the Court. He has been informed of the grounds on which he is charged with the contempt of Court. He is called upon to show‑ cause why he should not be punished under section 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976, on two counts 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent states that he was not supplied with a copy of the Press Notes, subject‑matter of the contempt proceedings, so he was not in a position to submit proper reply of the show -cause notice issued by the Court. He contended that now he has come to know of the allegations against him. He will file supplementary written statement for which reasonable time may be given to him. To enable him to do so, the hearing of the proceedings is adjourned for a date immediately after summer vacations.
N:H.Q./S‑990/S Show‑cause notice given.