| Case ID |
2d39a176-12bb-417c-82cb-e6efad7168e9 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Criminal Appeals Nos. 2 and 3 of 1969 |
| Decision Date |
May 07, 1970 |
| Hearing Date |
Dec 03, 1969 |
| Decision |
The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the convictions of the appellant, Yusuf Ali Khan, dismissing both Criminal Appeals Nos. 2 and 3 of 1969. The appellant was found guilty of contempt of court for making scandalous and defamatory allegations against the Sessions Judge of Sahiwal in a transfer application and a confidential letter addressed to Judge Jamil Asghar. The High Court had earlier sentenced him to simple imprisonment and fines, which were confirmed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the privilege claimed by the appellant as an Advocate was only of a qualified nature and did not extend to malicious and unfounded allegations against a judge. The appellant’s attempts to justify his actions by citing English law were rejected, emphasizing that in Pakistan, legal practitioners must adhere to local laws and standards of professional conduct. Moreover, his apology was deemed conditional and not sufficient to mitigate his contemptuous acts, leading to the upholding of the punishment without any reduction. The High Court’s remarks to refer the case to the West Pakistan Bar Council for evaluating the appellant’s fitness to continue practicing as an Advocate were also affirmed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s stance against contempt and upholds the integrity and authority of the courts in Pakistan. |
| Summary |
The Supreme Court of Pakistan adjudicated on Criminal Appeals Nos. 2 and 3 of 1969, addressing serious contempt of court charges against Yusuf Ali Khan, an Advocate at law. The core of the case revolved around Khan's transfer application under Section 526 of the Criminal Procedure Code, where he accused the Sessions Judge of Sahiwal of corruption and bias, alleging that the judge would favor the accused in exchange for bribes. Additionally, Khan sent a confidential letter to Judge Jamil Asghar, further insulting and threatening him, which was deemed highly contemptuous. The High Court had previously convicted Khan, imposing fines and imprisonment, which the Supreme Court upheld without modification. Khan argued that his actions were protected under legal practitioner privileges similar to English law's absolute privilege for counsel. However, the Supreme Court rejected this claim, asserting that in Pakistan, the privilege is qualified and does not cover malicious or baseless allegations against a judge. The Court emphasized that legal practitioners must conduct themselves with integrity and cannot abuse their privileges to undermine the judiciary. The decision referenced numerous precedents, including Munster v. Lamb (1883) and M. Moosa v. Muhammad (1968), reinforcing that contempt actions persist regardless of the context of court applications. Khan’s apology was deemed insufficient, as it was seen as conditional and lacking genuine contrition. Furthermore, the Court mandated a referral to the West Pakistan Bar Council to assess Khan's suitability to continue as an Advocate. This landmark decision highlights Pakistan’s judiciary's commitment to maintaining court decorum, integrity, and authority, ensuring that legal practitioners uphold the highest standards of professional conduct. It delineates the boundaries of legal privileges, safeguarding against abuses that could compromise the administration of justice. The rulings serve as a stern reminder to advocates and legal professionals about the severe consequences of contemptuous behavior and the imperatives of ethical legal practice in Pakistan. By reinforcing the importance of respectful and truthful representations in legal proceedings, the Supreme Court ensures the continued trust and effectiveness of the judicial system in administering justice fairly and without bias. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Shah Muhammad,
High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore,
Sessions Judge of Sahiwal,
Muhammad Amir and others,
Anti-Corruption Officials,
West Pakistan Bar Council
|
| Judges |
HAMOODUR RAHMAN, C.J.,
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI,
SAJJAD AHMAD
|
| Lawyers |
Raja Said Akbar Khan, Advocate-General West Pakistan,
Malik Abdul Hamid, Advocate Supreme Court,
Ijaz Ali, Attorney Supreme Court for the State
|
| Petitioners |
YUSUF ALI KHAN, BARRISTER AT LAW
|
| Respondents |
THE STATE
|
| Citations |
1970 SLD 93,
1970 PLD 350
|
| Other Citations |
Munster v. Lamb (1883),
Sir Edward Snelson's case P L D 1961 S C 237,
Ex parte Pater (1864) 5 B & S 299=122 E R 842,
Abdul Latif's case P L D 1961 Lah. 51,
S. M. Haq v. Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Judicature at Lahore P L D 1953 F C 247,
S. Israr Hussain v. The Crown P L D 1954 F C 215,
In re: Dawarkadas I L R 46 All. 121,
In re: Shiva Zumar Jha I L R 8 Pat. 575,
M. H. Khondkar v. The State P L D 1966 S C 140,
M. Moosa v. Muhammad and others P L D 1968 S C 25,
State v. Mir Abdul Qayyum P L D 1964 Lah. 661,
Piffard's case 1 Hyde 79,
Lord Advocate v. Jamieson (1822) 1 Sh. 286,
Sub-Judge First Class, Hoshang Abad's case A I R 1940 Nag. 407,
Rashid Murtaza Qureshi's case P L D 1966 S C 94,
State v. Delawar Hussain P L D 1961 Dacca 94,
M. Y. Sharif v. Judges of the Nagpur High Court A I R 1955 S C 19,
A. K. M. A. Awal's v. State P L D 1964 S C 562
|
| Laws Involved |
Contempt of Courts Act (XII of 1926),
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),
Constitution of Pakistan (1962)
|
| Sections |
S. 3,
S. 526,
Art. 123
|