Pakistan Law Site 109

Case Description ×
Caselaw Search
unconditional apology Search
Statutes Search Bookmark this Case 
Courtwise Search
P L D 2020 Islamabad 109
Citation Search
Before Athar Minallah, C.J.
THE STATE---Petitioner
Advance Search
Versus
DR. FIRDOUS ASHIQ AWAN---Respondent
Criminal Orginal No.270 of 2019, decided on 25th November, 2019.
Case Law Search
(a) Contempt of Court Ordinance (V of 2003)--- 
----Ss. 2(b) & apology
unconditional 6(1)(c)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 10-A & 204(2)---Criminal contempt---
Object and scope---Criminal contempt pertained to acts done with the intent of obstructing,
Enter Court
impeding or preventing due process of justice---Object of exercising the power of criminal
contempt was not to elevate the Court nor to protect the dignity of a judge; its exercise was
Last 10 Year
justified on the touchstone of ensuring access to an adjudicatory process by an independent
adjudicator and to protect the fairness of the legal process for every litigant---Safeguarding the
Search
dignity and decorum of the Courts and the administration of justice was inevitable for upholding
the rule of law and to ensure that disputes were decided in a fair and uninfluenced manner---
Category of criminal contempt was to safeguard the right to a fair trial of the litigants regardless
of the nature or gravity of the crime.
Ambard v. Attorney-General for Trinidad and Tobago [1936] 1 All ER 704; St. James's Evening
Post (1942) 2 Atk at 469;Vine Products Ltd. v. Mackenzie and Co. Ltd. [1965] 3 All ER 58; Re
Your Search
Truth andreturned total Ltd.
Sportsman 39 records
(1937)from37 0SRNSW
- 39 242; Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd.
[1973]Name:
Citation 3 All 2022
ER 54;
YLRThe
447Attorney General
Gilgit-Baltistan Chiefof Pakistan v. Abdul Hamid Sheikh,
Court Editor, this
Bookmark 'Civil and
Case 
Military Gazette' and another PLD 1963 SC 170; PLD 2018 SC 738; PLD 2018 SC 773;
Engineer MAZHAR HUSSAIN VS PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan
Contempt Proceedings against Imran Khan, Chairman, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Inshaf PLD 2014 SC
Ss. 3 & 4---Contempt of Court---Scope---Petitioners assailed notification issued by official respondents whereby
private respondent was assigned professional engineer work by posting him as Executive Engineer being diploma
holder---Chief Court directed the parties to maintain status quo---Private respondent, however, alternatively joined
his duties at another district in defiance of the court order---Respondents appeared before the court and submitted
unconditional apology---Apology was accepted but the impugned notification was recalled and the private
respondent was directed to report at his previous place of posting---Writ petition and contempt petition were
disposed of accordingly.
Head Notes Case Description
Citation Name: 2021 PCrLJ 644 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case 
MAQBOOL AHMAD VS State
S. 498---Pre-arrest bail---Certificate qua pendency of bail petition, falsity of---Professional misconduct---Scope---

Accused persons sought bail before arrest from the High Court---Law Officer apprised the court that pre-arrest bail of
the accused persons had been confirmed by the court of first instance during pendency of the bail petition before the
High Court---Advocate of the accused persons, in reply to the show cause notice issued by the court, submitted that
first bail petition of the accused persons was dismissed on merits, whereupon, he applied for bail before arrest in the
High Court; that during pendency of the petition, a compromise was effected between the parties, as such he filed
second bail petition before the Additional Sessions Judge on fresh ground of compromise; that he was a young
lawyer and could not disclose the factum of pendency of present petition before the Additional Sessions Judge---
Counsel tendered unconditional apology with a commitment that such mistake would not be repeated in future---
Held, concealment of fact relating to pendency of bail petition before the Additional Sessions Judge was a
professional misconduct---Purpose of requiring certificate qua pendency of any matter was that before adjudicating
upon the matter the Court should be well aware of the entire facts so that a conflicting order might not be passed---
Show-cause notice issued to the counsel was discharged with a stern warning--- Petition was disposed of
accordingly.
Citation Name: 2020 PLD 26 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case 

State VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
Case Description
Ss. 3 & 5---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 204---Contempt of court---unconditional apology by contemnor---Scope---
Submission of an unconditional apology by the alleged contemnor in every case was neither a condition precedent,
nor a point of ego or prestige for the Courts, which practices were to be adhered to in each case as a rule of thumb
before discharging the notice for contempt---Similarly, mere submission of unconditionalBookmark apology this
wasCase
also no

ground for further inaction in the proceedings or discharge of such notice without looking into the intent behind it.
PHead
L DNotes Case Description
2020 Islamabad 109
Citation Name: 2020 PLD 26 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case 
Versus
DR.VS
State FIRDOUS
ASSISTANTASHIQ AWAN---Respondent
COMMISSIONER
Ss. 3, 4 & 5---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 204---Contempt of court---Assistant Commissioner (contemnor) arresting
a (a)
QaziContempt of Court
(judicial officer) duringOrdinance (V of 2003)---
a raid---Manhandling and beating of judicial officer in public view after his arrest---
----Ss. 2(b) apology
unconditional & 6(1)(c)---Constitution
by contemnor---Had of thePakistan,
present case Arts.been10-A & 204(2)---Criminal
a simple case of raid or arrest contempt---
of a judicial
Object
officer fromand scope---Criminal
his house, the contemnorcontempt
could havepertained
been excusedto acts done
on the with
ground thatthe intent
he was notof obstructing,
aware of the legal
position regarding the arrest of a judicial officer but the acts of dragging, manhandling
impeding or preventing due process of justice---Object of exercising the power of criminal and beating the judicial officer
incontempt
view of the was
general
notpublic could bythe
to elevate no stretch
Court ofnor imagination
to protect be regarded
the dignity as innocent and bona
of a judge; its fide acts, rather
exercise was it
appeared to be a flagrant attempt to undermine and lower authority of the Court---In such like cases the Courts, in
order to safeguard the dignity and honour of the Courts were not reluctant to initiate contempt proceedings against
the contemnors---General interest of the community was based on protecting the authority of subordinate courts---If
dignity
the and decorum
Civil Judges, Judicial of the Courts
Magistrates andand thewere
Qazis administration
led into a trap of by
justice was inevitable
unscrupulous officers, for
andupholding
if they were
the rule hand
assaulted, of law and the
cuffed, to ensure thatbound
public was disputes werefaith
to loose decided in awhich
in courts, fair would
and uninfluenced
be destructive manner---
of the basic
Category
structure of ordered
of an criminalsociety---Permitting
contempt was tosuch safeguard
actions the
would right to a fair
supplant trialofoflaw
the rule thebylitigants regardless
civil servants and the
of the nature or
police---Present gravity
case was ofof exceptional
the crime. nature as the incident created a situation where functioning of the
subordinate
Ambard v.courts all over the province
Attorney-General was adversely
for Trinidad affected [1936]
and Tobago and the 1administration
All ER 704;of St. justice was paralyzed---
James's Evening
Incident in question undermined the dignity of courts in the province---Judicial
Post (1942) 2 Atk at 469;Vine Products Ltd. v. Mackenzie and Co. Ltd. [1965] 3 All ER 58; Re Officers, Qazis, Judges and
Magistrates all over the province were in a state of shock and felt insecure and humiliated---Number of Bar
Truth and Sportsman Ltd. (1937) 37 SRNSW 242; Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd.
Associations also passed resolutions and went on strike---Contemnor (Assistant Commissioner) was the main
[1973] 3 All ER 54; The Attorney General of Pakistan v. Abdul Hamid Sheikh, Editor, 'Civil and
character in the entire incident and he had planned the entire episode to humiliate the judicial officer in the public
Military Gazette'
eye---Though and another
the contemnor deserved PLD
maximum 1963 SC 170;being
punishment PLDthe2018 SC 738;
main actor, yet thePLD
High 2018
Court was SC inclined
773;
toContempt
take lenientProceedings
view against theagainst Imran
contemnor for Khan,
the reasonChairman,
that from Pakistan
the first dayTehreek-e-Inshaf
notice was given toPLD him, he2014 SC
tendered
unconditional apology---Contemnor was convicted under S.4 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 and
sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ with imprisonment till rising of the Court---In default in payment of fine, the
contemnor was directed to further undergo imprisonment for a period 15 days---Constitutional petition was disposed
of.
Citation Name: 2020 PLC 72 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case 
DEEN MUHAMMAD VS LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
S.41---Grievance petition without service of grievance notice---Maintainability---Employee was suspended and was
dismissed from service after inquiry---Employee served grievance notice against his suspension through his counsel
but no such notice was issued against order for dismissal---Grievance petition moved by the employee was allowed
by the Labour Court but Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed the same---Validity---Employee himself should bring his
grievance to the notice of employer and employer within fifteen days of the grievance brought to his notice should
communicate his decision in writing to the worker---Grievance notice could not be served through counsel---
Grievance notice, in the present case, was served through counsel which was against mandatory provision of law---
When a party had made admission, there was no need of formal inquiry---Employee in the present case, had
rendered unconditional apology to the employer---Inquiry against the employee in circumstances was not
mandatory---Foundation of case would revolve around the grievance notice and without issuing the same the whole
superstructure would automatically fall to the ground---Employee had not issued grievance notice against his
dismissal from service in the present case---Mandatory requirements of law had not been complied with, in
circumstances---Grievance petition was not maintainable before the Labour Court---Labour Appellate Tribunal had
rightly accepted the appeal of employer against the employee---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in
circumstances.
Citation Name: 2020 PLD 109 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case 
State VS DR. FIRDOUS ASHIQ AWAN

Ss. 2(b) & 6(1)(c)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 204(2)---Criminal contempt---Prejudicing determination of a matter
pending before a court---Press conference by a Federal Minister ('the contemnor')---Statements made by contemnor
Case Description
during the press conference indicated that a perception was being created by the holders of the highest executive
public offices regarding the administration of justice being compromised, resulting in extending extraordinary relief or
favour to an influential litigant---Such attempted perception was being created by those who exercised and wielded
the powers of the State as its executive authorities---Contemnor went to the extent of doubting Bookmark this Case
the medical 
reports
(on basis of which the litigant in question was granted relief) by unequivocally stating that they could have been
manipulated---Ironically such an assertion was being made by a responsible member of the Federal Cabinet, which
P LanD indictment
was 2020 Islamabad
against his109own Government---Having regard to the status, duties and obligations of the
contemnor, he/she could not beC.J.
Before Athar Minallah, extended the benefit of doubt for not being aware of the facts and the consequences
ofTHE STATE---Petitioner
his statements which tended to prejudice the determination of matters pending before the High Court---Contemnor
opted
Versusnot to contest the contempt notice and tendered an unconditional apology---Despite the gravity of the
offence, High Court observed that it was restraining itself from handing down a conviction and sentencing the
contemnor because during the course of present proceedings it appeared that there was probably not sufficient
awareness in the society regarding the importance of criminal contempt in the context of a pending matter before a
(a) Contempt of Court Ordinance (V of 2003)---
Court; that the contemnor appeared to have realized the consequences of his conduct and had thus tendered
----Ss. 2(b) apology,
unconditional & 6(1)(c)---Constitution of Pakistan,
and that the Court expected Arts.he/she
that in future 10-Awould
& 204(2)---Criminal
exercise care by notcontempt---
doing anything
Object
that tendedand scope---Criminal
to prejudice contempt
the determination pertained
of pending to actsordone
proceedings with or
to obstruct thedivert
intent
the of obstructing,
course of justice---
impeding
Petition or preventing
was disposed of. due process of justice---Object of exercising the power of criminal
Head Notes
justified on theCase Description
touchstone of ensuring access to an adjudicatory process by an independent
dignityName:
Citation and decorum
2020 PLDof 109the Courts and the administration of justice was inevitable for upholding
ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case 
Category
State VS DR.of criminalASHIQ
FIRDOUS contempt
AWANwas to safeguard the right to a fair trial of the litigants regardless
of2(b)
Ss. the &nature or gravity of the
6(1)(c)---Constitution crime. Art. 204(2)---Criminal contempt---Prejudicing determination of a matter
of Pakistan,
Ambard v. Attorney-General for
pending before a court---Press conference Trinidad and Tobago
by Special [1936]
Assistant to the 1Prime
All ER 704; ('the
Minister St. James's Evening
contemnor')---Press
Post (1942)
conference was 2 Atkbyatthe469;Vine
held contemnor, Products Ltd.capacity
in her official v. Mackenzie and Co.ofLtd.
as spokesperson [1965]
the Chief 3 All ER
Executive 58;
of the Re
country
toTruth and and
brief print Sportsman
electronicLtd.
media(1937)
persons37 regarding
SRNSW the 242;meeting
Attorneyof the General
Federalv.Cabinet---Contemnor
Times Newspapers Ltd.the
gave
impression
[1973] 3 asAllif ER
some extraordinary
54; The AttorneyreliefGeneral
was granted to a particular
of Pakistan litigant,
v. Abdul and that
Hamid such Editor,
Sheikh, relief was givenand
'Civil on a
holiday---Such impression was contrary to the rules which have been adopted
Military Gazette' and another PLD 1963 SC 170; PLD 2018 SC 738; PLD 2018 SC 773; by the High Court---Contemnor also
attempted to mislead the general public by creating a perception, as an official spokesperson, that an influential
litigant had managed to get relief which otherwise was not extended to the less privileged---Having regard to the
status, duties and obligations of the contemnor, she could not be extended the benefit of doubt for not being aware
of the facts and the consequences of her statements which tended to prejudice the determination of matters pending
before the High Court---Contemnor had acted in a manner that constituted criminal contempt, as she attempted to
obstruct the administration of justice and through her acts and statements she had tended to prejudice the
determination of a matter pending before the High Court---Contemnor also tried to create a false perception which
was likely to lower the prestige of the judicial process and consequently prejudice the trust of the people in the
Courts; her acts and statements were intended and calculated to impede, obstruct and divert the administration and
course of justice---Contemnor opted not to contest the contempt notice and tendered an unconditional apology---
Despite the gravity of the offence, High Court observed that it was restraining itself from handing down a conviction
and sentencing the contemnor because during the course of present proceedings it appeared that there was
probably not sufficient awareness in the society regarding the importance of criminal contempt in the context of a
pending matter before a Court; that the contemnor appeared to have realized the consequences of her conduct and
had thus tendered unconditional apology, and that the Court expected that in future she would exercise care by
not doing anything that tended to prejudice the determination of pending proceedings or to obstruct or divert the
course of justice---Petition was disposed of.
Citation Name: 2020 PLD 109 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case 
State VS DR. FIRDOUS ASHIQ AWAN
Ss. 3 & 5---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 204(2)---Contempt of Court---unconditional apology by contemnor---

Effect---Tendering of unconditional apology did not necessarily lead to putting an end to the contempt proceedings.
Citation Name: 2019 SCMR 542 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case 
TALAL AHMED CHAUDHRY VS State

Ss. 3 & 5---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 204(2)---Contempt of Court---apology/repentance by contemnor---Bona
fides of contemnor---Courts in the matter of contempt tended to show grace and magnanimity towards the alleged
Case Description
contemnor in cases where the contemnor without justifying his action/statement showed his repentance, remorse
and at the earliest opportunity submitted an unconditional apology by throwing himself at the mercy of the Courts---
Said rule, however, was not a rule of thumb and could not be applied to every case as an apology tendered did not
automatically purge the contemnor of the contempt and may not necessarily be accepted unlessBookmark
the Court from 
this Case the
surrounding circumstances was satisfied about the bona fide of the contemnor.
PHead
L DNotes
2020 Islamabad 109
Case Description
Versus
DR. AHMED
TALAL FIRDOUS ASHIQVS
CHAUDHRY AWAN---Respondent
State
Ss.
(a)3 Contempt
& 5---Constitution of Pakistan,
of Court Ordinance Art. (V
204(2)---Contempt
of 2003)--- of court---unconditional apology by contemnor---
Scope---Apology has to consist of acknowledgement of commission of contempt and an unequivocal expression of
----Ss. 2(b) & 6(1)(c)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 10-A & 204(2)---Criminal contempt---
regret for such commission.
impeding
Head Notesor preventing due process of justice---Object of exercising the power of criminal
Case Description
Citation Name:and
adjudicator 2019toPLD 1 SUPREME-COURT
protect the fairness of the legal process for every litigant---Safeguarding
Bookmark this Case the
VS
Cls. 4(3), 4(6)
Category of & 4(9)---Pakistan
criminal contemptElectronic
was to Media Regulatory
safeguard Authority
the right Ordinance,
to a fair 2002litigants
trial of the [as amended by the
regardless
Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Amendment) Act, 2007], S. 19(5)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4,
10-A, 19, 19A & 204(2)(c)---International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Arts. 14 & 19---Suo motu
case---Freedom of media to report and comment on sub-judice matters---Scope---Sub-judice contempt---Scope---
Television talk show---Commenting/discussing a matter sub-judice before the Supreme Court---Unqualified and
Truth and Sportsman
unconditional Ltd. (1937)
apology---Balance 37struck
must be SRNSW 242;the
between Attorney Generalof v.speech
right to freedom TimesandNewspapers
information onLtd.
one
[1973] 3 All ER 54; The Attorney General of Pakistan v. Abdul Hamid Sheikh, Editor, 'Civil
hand and the right to fair trial, to be dealt with in accordance with law and of due process on the other---Media and
Militarysensationalized
commonly Gazette' andissues
another PLDimportance
of public 1963 SCand 170; PLD guilt
deduced 2018 SC any
before 738; PLD 2018
substantial SChad773;
finding been
recorded
Contempt against the personagainst
Proceedings undergoing
Imrantrial/investigation/inquiry,
Khan, Chairman, Pakistan and where this resulted in the
Tehreek-e-Inshaf PLD mere risk SC
2014 of a
substantial danger of the judges seized of the matter no longer remaining impartial, the right to fair trial of the person
facing trial/investigation was irreparably lost---Essential element of fair trial was an impartial judiciary and one could
not turn a blind eye to the fact that comment on a sub judice matter in the media or any other widely circulated
publication had at least the potential of having an indirect effect on the minds of the judges seized of a matter---
Although judges had the ability to ignore any irrelevant considerations while adjudicating a matter, the mere risk or
danger of causing prejudice to a pending matter was sufficient for the law to step in to protect the right of the one
being adversely affected---Possibility of ill-informed, inconsiderate or careless comments that may prejudice sub-
judice proceedings and such risk of substantial danger of pre-judgment was sufficient to trigger the protection of the
law with regards to the right of a person to an impartial judiciary, due process and right to put forth his defense
before anyone else gave his subjective opinion on the same---Strict guidelines had to be implemented to prevent
any prejudicial comments on pending cases, as this would in no manner take away the freedom of the press/mass
media/broadcasters and would only aid in upholding the rule of law and fair and impartial trials in the larger interest
of justice---Notwithstanding the fact that the alleged contemnor in the present case, who was host of a television talk
show, had tendered an unqualified apology, considering the pending proceedings before the Supreme Court, inter
alia, regarding the inquiry by Federal Investigation Agency against the former President/accused, the comments
made on the subject episode of the talk show led to a substantial danger of prejudicing the accused's case and thus
potentially trampled upon his right to a fair trial and due process guaranteed under Art.4 & Arti.10-A respectively of
the Constitution---If voluntary violations of the Electronic Media (Programmes and Advertisements) Code of Conduct,
2015 ("Code of Conduct") or even negligence by the licensees to ensure adherence thereto was not penalized by
the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), the 'Code of Conduct' would be reduced to mere
paper and be rendered absolutely redundant---Supreme Court accepted the unconditional and unqualified apology
tendered by the alleged contemnor and issued a writ of mandamus to PEMRA to ensure that certain parameters laid
down in the law and the 'Code of Conduct'were adhered to in letter and spirit and that no violations thereof were
tolerated by PEMRA---Suo motu case was disposed of accordingly.
Citation Name: 2019 CLD 164 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Bookmark this Case 
NFC EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. VS

Ss. 2(1)(k), 2(1)(q), 4, 30, 37 & 38---Competition Commission (General Enforcement) Regulations, 2007, Regln.37---
Prohibited agreement---Undertaking and relevant market, determination of---Competition Commission received
Case Description
concerns raised by residents of respondent society that they were being forced to subscribe to the sole cable
networks and were deprived of the choice of any alternate or competing services provided in the locality---Said
residents further alleged that they were being forced to pay whatever subscription amount the "Provider" would
charge, regardless of the quality of service being provided---Enquiry Committee, submittedBookmark this
its enquiry 
Casewith
report
conclusion that by virtue of the exclusivity agreement arrived at between society and the "Provider", a prima facie
contravention of S.4(1)(2)(a)(d) of Competition Act, 2010 was made out against the society and the "Provider"---First
P L involved
issue D 2020 inIslamabad
the case was;109whether the society was an "undertaking" within the meaning of S.2(1)(q) of the
Before Athar
Competition Minallah, C.J.
Act, 2010---Society had submitted that being a co-operative society, it did not fall within the meaning of
"undertaking"---Concept of "undertaking" would include every entity; whether natural or legal, as long as it was
engaged,
Versus directly or indirectly in any commercial or economic activity, regardless of the legal status and way in which
it was financed---Competition Act, 2010, had not classified the private economic operators or public entity differently,
as long as they were engaged in any commercial or economic activity in a given market, they would fall within the
definition of the term "undertaking"---Society, in circumstances, was an 'undertaking' and would remain liable for
contravention of Competition Act, 2010---Second issue involved in the case was "what was the relevant market" for
the----Ss.
purpose2(b) & 6(1)(c)---Constitutionofofsociety
of proceedings---Management Pakistan, Arts. 10-A
had asserted & 204(2)---Criminal
that the "Provider" was not the contempt---
sole service
Objectbecause
provider, and scope---Criminal contempt
"PTCL" was also providing pertained
similar services to actsresidents
to the done within the the intent
society; of obstructing,
thereby suggesting that
impeding
said or preventing
two services due process ofmarket'
were substitutable---'Relevant justice---Object of exercising
suggested identification of twothe power
or more of criminal
products belonging
tocontempt
the same was market---Relevant market assessment also required determining the
not to elevate the Court nor to protect the dignity of a judge; its exercise was geographic market---Business
undertakings, subject to competition,
justified on the touchstone must respect
of ensuring accesstwoto major competitive constraints
an adjudicatory process byin an terms of demand
independent
substitutability and supply substitutability---Market was considered to be competitive, if customers could choose
between a range of products/services by reason of their characteristics, prices charged and intended use---Two
services were not substitutable from demand side i.e. consumers' perspective---Third issue involved in the case was
thewhether
that, rule ofthelaw and to granted
exclusivity ensure tothatthe disputes were
"Provider' by the decided
society forin thea provisions
fair and of uninfluenced manner---
Cable TV Services had the
Category
object ofofcriminal
or effect contempt
preventing, was
restricting to safeguard
or reducing the right
Competition in thetorelevant
a fair trial
market ofinthe litigants regardless
contravention of S.4 of the
of the nature
Competition Act, or gravity of theclauses
2010---Relevant crime.of agreement arrived at between the society and the "Provider", were;
Ambard v.whereby,
(exclusivity), Attorney-General
during saidfor Trinidad no
agreement, andother
Tobago [1936]would
competitor 1 All beERaccommodated,
704; St. James's Evening
subject to the
satisfactory
Post (1942) performance
2 Atk at of469;Vine
the "Cable Network Ltd.
Products Services"---Clause
v. Mackenzieforand renewal
Co. of Ltd.the[1965]
agreement provided
3 All ER 58;that Reon
the expiry of five years, if some better offer from other cable service was received
Truth and Sportsman Ltd. (1937) 37 SRNSW 242; Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd. than the "Provider" Service would
have to match the new offer or the society management would be at liberty to hire the services of other better party--
-Said two clauses had indicated that those were anti-competitive and restrictive of competition---Exclusivity granted
to the "Provider" prevented, restricted and reduced competition by imposing respective trading conditions; restricting
Contempt
output as well Proceedings against Imran
technical advancement in termsKhan, Chairman,
of innovation Pakistan and
and efficiencies Tehreek-e-Inshaf PLD 2014
investment, in violation SC
of S.4(1)(2)
(a)(b)(d) of Competition Act, 2010---Agreement further regulated the future rapports between the parties to the
agreement; if same was fulfilled, the "Provider" would continue to enjoy exclusivity or monopoly preventing other
Cable T.V. Operators in the relevant market---Competition Commission observed that said clause of agreement had
the object as well the effect of reducing, restricting and preventing competition in the relevant market as envisaged
under S.4 of the Competition Act, 2010---Clauses of the agreement were violative of S. 4 of the Act and were void in
terms of its S.4(3)---Authorized representative of the Society had tendered unconditional apology and submitted its
commitment to amend its agreement with the "Provider" to the satisfaction of the Commission
CH. IFTIKHAR AHMED, I.-G., ISLAMABAD VS State

S. 3---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 204(2)---Contempt of Court---unconditional apology tendered by alleged
contemnor, acceptance of---Principles---Apology not sincere and not tendered at the earliest stage of contempt
Case Description
proceedings---Manhandling of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court---Reference had been sent against the then Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court under Art. 209 of the Constitution to the Supreme Judicial Council (the Council)---Chief
Justice as a mark of protest did not use the official vehicle made available for taking him to the Supreme Court
building for appearance before the Council, and walked out of his residence---When the Bookmark this Case
Chief Justice 
started
walking on foot, the police personnel in the presence of accused persons allegedly tried to prevent him from
proceeding on foot and in doing so some police personnel physically stopped him and tried to push him into the
P L Dcar---Accused
official 2020 Islamabad persons109 submitted their unconditional apologies for the incident but were still found guilty of
Before Athar Minallah,
Contempt of Court and awarded C.J.sentences of imprisonment---Contention of accused persons that in view of their
unconditional apologies, the Court could have taken a lenient view and discharged them from the contempt
proceedings---Validity---Accused
Versus contemnors did not submit any unconditional apologies at the outset, but only
submitted the same after a few dates of hearing when charge had been framed against them---Perusal of
unconditional apologies tendered by some of the accused showed that they were stereotype and some of the words
appearing in those had been mis-spelt and none of them cared or bothered to correct them and it showed there was
no application of mind by accused persons---Such unconditional apologies seemed to have been submitted in post
----Ss.
haste after2(b) & 6(1)(c)---Constitution
the charge had been framed and there of Pakistan,
did not seemArts. 10-A
to be & 204(2)---Criminal
any sincere and genuine remorse contempt---
rather they
Object to
appeared andbe scope---Criminal
half-hearted merely to contempt
fill up the pertained to acts
formality---Some done
of the with persons
accused the intent of obstructing,
had even tried to justify
impeding
their conduct or preventing
in their apologiesdue process
which had become of justice---Object
cause of contempt of proceeding---Gravity
exercising the power of the of criminal
conduct of the
accused persons was also to be seriously taken note of in that they had
contempt was not to elevate the Court nor to protect the dignity of a judge; its exercise was physically roughed up, manhandled,
pushed,
justifiedbundled and touchstone
on the physically forced
of the Chief Justice
ensuring accessof the
to anSupreme Court, theprocess
adjudicatory head of the byhighest judicial forum
an independent
of the country, to sit in a car---Holder of highest judicial office of the country was restrained physically in the eyes of
the public and also in the presence of print and electronic media---Such incident could not, by any means, be
considered a minor incident which could be let off by submission of unconditional apology rather such conduct
the rule
required of lawbyand
visitation to ensure
exemplary that disputes
punishments were decided
for the conduct in a fair
of the accused andasuninfluenced
persons it had jolted themanner---
very edifice
ofCategory of criminal
the judicature, as provided contempt was to safeguard
in the Constitution, the right
and seriously to a fair
undermined andtrial of the
brought litigantsofregardless
the authority the Court or
of the natureof or
administration gravity
justice into of the crime.
disrespect, disrepute and interfered with, obstructed, interrupted and prejudiced the
Ambard
process v. Attorney-General
of law for Trinidad
and due course of judicial and Tobago [1936]
proceedings---Accused persons1 had
All already
ER 704; been St.dealt
James's
quite Evening
leniently in
terms
Post of(1942)
quantum of their
2 Atk sentencesProducts
at 469;Vine of imprisonment---Supreme
Ltd. v. Mackenzie Court
and directed
Co. Ltd.that other 3than
[1965] Allthose
ER 58; accused
Re
persons sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the Court, the other
Truth and Sportsman Ltd. (1937) 37 SRNSW 242; Attorney General v. Times Newspapers Ltd. accused were to be taken into custody and
lodged in prison to serve out their respective sentences---Intra-court appeals were dismissed accordingly.
Military Gazette'
Head Notes and
Case another PLD 1963 SC 170; PLD 2018 SC 738; PLD 2018 SC 773;
Description
CH. IFTIKHAR AHMED, I.-G., ISLAMABAD VS State
S. 3---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 204(2)---Contempt of Court---unconditional apology tendered by alleged

contemnor, acceptance of---Principles---Where an apology was tendered it would not automatically purge the
contemnor from contempt and may not necessarily be accepted unless the Court from surrounding circumstances
was satisfied about its bona fides---Acceptance or rejection of apology, therefore, depended upon the volume and
nature of contempt allegedly committed---Bona fades of the contemnor and satisfaction of the Court about
genuineness of the apology being tendered were the main factors to be considered---Fundamentals for acceptance
of apology were that the apology must be offered at the earliest stage of the contempt proceedings and may not be
postponed till fag-end of the proceedings; that the apology must be unconditional, unreserved and unqualified; that
the apology should not only appear but must also satisfactorily represent sincere and genuine remorse and should
not be half-hearted or mere formality, and that the contemnor should not endeavor to justify his conduct.
Syed Kaleem Ahmed Khurshid, Senior Advocate Supreme Court/President, SCBA. VS CONTEMPT
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MUHAMMAD NEHAL HASHMI
S. 3---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 204(2)---Contempt of Supreme Court---Abusive language used against Judges of
the Supreme Court---unconditional apology and undertaking by contemnor---Effect---Contempt proceedings
Case Description
dropped against contemnor---Words and conduct of the contemnor constituted gross contempt of the Supreme
Court---Contemnor had also admitted his unbecoming conduct, however, he had expressed regret and remorse
about his conduct, submitted an unconditional apology and placed himself at the mercy of the Court seeking
forgiveness--- Such remorse prima facie appeared to be sincere---Further, the contemnor had Bookmark Case 
thisassurance
given an
and undertaking that he would not give any cause of complaint of any nature in the future to the Court in respect of
his conduct---Keeping in view the(old) age, mental state and health of the contemnor, and the fact that he had
P L D served
recently 2020 Islamabad 109 to him by the Supreme Court and also stood disqualified from holding a public
a sentence awarded
office for a period of five years,C.J.
Before Athar Minallah, the Supreme Court decided to exercise restraint, magnanimity and forbearance in
THE
the STATE---Petitioner
present matter---Supreme Court accepted the unconditional and unqualified apology tendered by the contemnor
and dropped the proceedings for contempt of Court initiated against him---Supreme Court directed that in case of
Versus
any lapse on the part of the contemnor with respect to complete and faithful adherence to the assurance and
undertaking given by him in writing, he shall be dealt with strictly in accordance with law, and no leniency would be
shown towards him, and that present order was being passed in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
present case, therefore, it shall not be used or cited as a precedent for any future case.
Object and scope---Criminal
Head Notes Case Description contempt pertained to acts done with the intent of obstructing,
Citation Name: 2018 SCMR 556 SUPREME-COURT this Case 
justified on the touchstone of ensuring access to an adjudicatory process Bookmark by an independent
adjudicator
CONTEMPT and to protect
PROCEEDINGS the fairness
AGAINST of the
SENATOR legalHASHMI
NEHAL processVSfor every litigant---Safeguarding the
S. 5(2)---Contempt of Court---unconditional apology---Acceptance by court---Bona fides of contemnor---Section
5(2) of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 dealing with submission of apology by a person accused of having
committed Contempt of Court did not envisage an automatic acceptance of the apology by the court but made its
of the nature
acceptance or to
subject gravity of the
the court's crime. about its bona fide.
satisfaction
Post
Head(1942)
Notes 2 Atk Caseat Description
469;Vine Products Ltd. v. Mackenzie and Co. Ltd. [1965] 3 All ER 58; Re
Citation Name: 2018 SCMR 556 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark 
Military Gazette' and another PLD 1963 SC 170; PLD 2018 SC 738; PLD 2018this
SCCase
773;
Contempt PROCEEDINGS
CONTEMPT Proceedings against
AGAINST Imran Khan,NEHAL
SENATOR Chairman,
HASHMI Pakistan
VS Tehreek-e-Inshaf PLD 2014 SC
Ss. 3 & 5(1)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 63(1)(g) & 204(2)---Contempt of Supreme Court---Sentence---Mitigating
circumstances---Disqualification from membership of Parliament---Offending words publically uttered by the
accused-contemnor had received wide publicity nationally as well internationally, and they amounted to a grave
contempt of the Supreme Court yet there were some mitigating circumstances available warranting withholding the
maximum sentence provided for the offence by the law---Accused was about sixty years of age, he was an Advocate
for the last about thirty years, he had submitted an unconditional apology though belatedly, he had thrown himself
at the mercy of the Court and had decided not to contest these proceedings and upon his conviction for the offence
of Contempt of Court he was to be visited with a disqualification under Art. 63(1)(g) of the Constitution---Accused
was convicted for the offence under S. 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, read with Art. 204(2) of the
Constitution and was sentenced under S. 5(1) of the Ordinance to simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of
Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a
further period of fifteen days---Since the accused had been convicted and sentenced by the Supreme Court for
acting in a manner prejudicial to the integrity and independence of the judiciary and for defaming and bringing the
judiciary into ridicule, therefore, by virtue of Art. 63(1)(g) of the Constitution he ipso facto stood disqualified from
being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) for a period of five years
from date of present judgment.
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SENATOR NEHAL HASHMI VS

Ss. 3, 5(2) & 18---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 204(2)---Contempt of Supreme Court---Obstructing the process of
law and justice---Bringing the authority of the court and administration of law into disrespect, disrepute or hatred---
Case Description
unconditional apology submitted belatedly after contesting contempt proceedings---Effect---Accused-contemnor
delivered a speech wherein he was alleged to have threatened Judges of the Supreme Court, their families and
children and Members of a Joint Investigation Team and their families and children---Offending words uttered by the
accused in the speech were nothing but an effort to obstruct, interfere with and prejudice the Bookmark this Case
proceedings 
pending
before the Supreme Court and before a Joint Investigation Team working under the direct command and supervision
of the Supreme Court---Words uttered by the accused in public were meant to interfere with, obstruct and prejudice
P process
the L D 2020 Islamabad
of law, 109
justice and the Supreme Court and were also intended to bring the authority of Supreme Court
and administration of law into disrespect, disrepute or hatred within the meanings of S. 3 of the Contempt of Court
Ordinance, 2003 and Art. 204 of the Constitution---Manner in which the accused had acted on the occasion was
surely
Versusprejudicial to the integrity and independence of the judiciary of the country as a whole as it had defamed and
brought it into ridicule---Contempt committed by the accused was quite grave and was one which was substantially
detrimental to the administration of justice besides tending to bring the Supreme Court and the Judges of the
Supreme Court into disrespect and hatred---Initially the accused had contested the proceedings and his belated
apology submitted after about seven months of commencement of the contempt proceedings and at the fag end of
----Ss.
such 2(b) & when
proceedings 6(1)(c)---Constitution of Pakistan,
the evidence of the prosecution hadArts. 10-A
already been&completely
204(2)---Criminal
recorded andcontempt---
closed spoke
Objectabout
volumes and the
scope---Criminal
apology being an contempt pertained of
afterthought---Conduct tothe
acts done inwith
accused such the intent
regard of obstructing,
impinged upon bona fide
ofimpeding
his apology or and,
preventing
thus, the due
sameprocess
had notof justice---Object
been of exercising
found to be meriting the power Court
acceptance---Supreme of criminal
held the
accused guilty of committing contempt of the Supreme Court.
the rule
Citation of law
Name: 2018and to 899
PCrLJ ensure that disputes were decided in a fair and uninfluenced
ISLAMABAD manner---
Bookmark this Case 
State VS nature
of the MATI ULLAH JAN of the crime.
or gravity
Ambard
1990 SCMRv.215,Attorney-General
1999 SCMR 2810,for Trinidad and Tobago [1936] 1 All ER 704; St. James's Evening
Arts. 204(2)---Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance (XIII of 2002), S. 4---Contempt of Court---
Television show---Maligning Superior Courts---unconditional apology---Allegation against the host of the television
show and his guests ("respondents") was that during the show the name of a High Court judge was repeated time
Military
and Gazette'
again with and
mala fide another
intention, PLD
ulterior 1963and
motives SCin 170; PLD
order to 2018
mislead the SC 738;and
viewers, PLD 2018
that a SC opinion
unilateral 773;
Contempt
without Proceedings
verification againstand
was expressed Imran Khan, Chairman,
an attempt was made to Pakistan
malign Tehreek-e-Inshaf
the superior Courts PLD
of the2014 SC
country---
Respondents/alleged contemnors had admitted the allegations and tendered unconditional apology, by stating that
they would remain careful in future, therefore, the High Court by showing grace and kindness discharged the
contempt notices and dropped the contempt proceedings initiated against the respondents---High Court observed
that it was the prime responsibility of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority ("PEMRA") to play its role by
keeping a watchful eye on the programmes, especially talk shows, which were being telecast on the news channels
on daily basis, and instead of being awoken by the Courts or any other institute, PEMRA itself was required to act in
accordance with their rules and regulations to avoid violation of terms and conditions contained in the Pakistan
Electronic Media Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002 and Electronic Media (Programmes and Advertisement),
Code of Conduct, 2015 so as to make sure that violation of provisions of Art. 19 of the Constitution had not been
made by any of the news channels---Contempt proceedings were discharged accordingly.
Citation Name: 2018 CLD 778 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN Bookmark this Case 
KITCHEN STONE FOODS ON COMPLAINT FILED BY MESSRS QUICK FOOD INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED AND
MESSRS SEASONS FOODS (PVT.) LIMITED VS
2010 CLD 1478, 2010 CLD 1695, 2015 CLD 1638, 2016 CLD 105, 2017 CLD 1550, 2017 CLD 1609,
Ss. 10, 30, 37 & 38--- Competition Commission (General Enforcement) Regulations, 2007, Reglns. 17 & 18---
Deceptive marketing practices---Allegation of deceptive marketing practices by virtue of advertising and claiming that
Case Description
food products were "100% non-processed" or "Pakistan's first non-processed frozen food"; which was false,
misleading, unsubstantiated---Competition Commission initiated enquiry and based on the finding and
recommendations of the enquiry report and in the public interest, the Commission decided to initiate proceedings
under S.30 of the Competition Act, 2010 and issued show-cause notice to the respondent---All Bookmark this Case 
representations;
whether intentional or unintentional, which were not easily noticeable or easily understandable to target consumers
and could influence their purchasing decision, were materially false and adversely affected competition, were
P L D 2020
actionable underIslamabad
S.10 of the 109Competition Act, 2010---Competition Commission, was of the opinion that the
Before Athar Minallah,
respondent's product, could or C.J.
could not contain entirely synthetic and unnaturally processed ingredients; its
advertising claims "100% Non-Processed" and "Pakistan's First Non-Processed Meat", essentially fell within the
category
Versus of processed meat or meat based products---Respondent's advertising claim amounted to the
dissemination of false and misleading information in substance, hence deceptive and in contravention of S.10 of the
Competition Act, 2010---Respondent had propagated that processed meat or meat-based products would cause
cancer and since its products were 100% non-processed, it had either implicitly or explicitly, claimed that its products
did not cause cancer and hence ensuring or enhancing health and safety of its consumers---Competition
----Ss. 2(b)noticed
Commission, & 6(1)(c)---Constitution of Pakistan,
that the respondent's advertised claims,Arts. 10-Ato&risks
pertained 204(2)---Criminal contempt---
associated with (processed) meat
Object
and cancerand
andscope---Criminal
its targeted audience contempt pertained
or consumers beingtochildren
acts done with the
and parents, intent ofought
respondent obstructing,
to possess
impedingbasis
reasonable or orpreventing due process
prior substantiation in termsofofjustice---Object
competent and reliable of exercising the power of criminal
scientific evidence---Respondent, neither
had any qualification or qualified staff to conduct such research, nor it had demonstrated
contempt was not to elevate the Court nor to protect the dignity of a judge; its exercise was that the procedures applied
byjustified
it were generally accepted in of
on the touchstone thatensuring
professionaccess
in orderto toanyield accurate results
adjudicatory process in respect
by an ofindependent
its product---
Respondent's advertisement material lacked a reasonable basis or prior substantiation in terms of competent and
reliable scientific evidence---Respondent's representation for the advertisement of its products, was unsubstantiated
and deceptive being in contravention of S.10 of the Competition Act, 2010---Respondent was obliged to prove its
the rule
claims of lawa reasonable
or provide and to ensurebasis that disputes
in terms were decided
of competent and reliable in evidence,
a fair andwhichuninfluenced
it had failedmanner---
to provide---
Category rendered
Respondent of criminal contempt wasapology
an unconditional to safeguard
and made the commitment
right to a fair trial of thethe
to discontinue litigants
impugnedregardless
advertised
of the nature or gravity
claims---Respondent had made of the crime.on its product packaging material, including withdrawal of its marketing
changes
Ambardtov. the
campaign Attorney-General
satisfaction of theforCommission---Respondent,
Trinidad and Tobago [1936] having1 been
All ER 704; St.
engaged in James's
deceptiveEvening
marketing
practices prohibited
Post (1942) 2 Atk under S.10 of the
at 469;Vine Competition
Products Ltd.Act, 2010, Competition
v. Mackenzie and Co. Commission
Ltd. [1965] had3imposed
All ER penalty
58; Reof
Rs.1,000,000 on the respondent, with direction to refrain from indulging
Truth and Sportsman Ltd. (1937) 37 SRNSW 242; Attorney General v. Times Newspapers in any form of deceptive marketing practices
Ltd.
in future and was forewarned that repetition of violation could attract stricter penalties as per law.
Military Gazette'
Head Notes and
Description
Citation Name: 2017 MLD 547 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case 
State VS ALI AMIN GHANDAPUR
PLD 2007 SC 688,
S.3---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.204---Contempt of Court---unconditional apology---Effect---Contempt notice was

issued to a politician who conducted press conference wherein he levelled the contemptuous allegations---Notice
was also issued to television channels and Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority for airing contemptuous
allegations against Chief Justice of High Court---Contemnors submitted their unconditional apology on receipt of
contempt notices---Validity---High Court was satisfied with unconditional and unqualified apology of contemnors
tendered at the first opportunity, accepted the apology and warned the contemnors to remain careful and to act
prudently in future---High Court directed the press and electronic media as well as Pakistan Electronic Media
Regulatory Authority, who failed to restrict derogatory conference while airing and publishing the same, not to cross
their limits under the garb of 'freedom of speech'---High Court observed that Media should exercise fundamental
right of freedom of speech within the ambit of ethos and values of Pakistan and that emancipation from the bondage
of the soil was no freedom for the tree---unconditional apology of the contemnors was accepted and contempt
notices were withdrawn.
Citation Name: 2017 MLD 2105 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case 
Mst. FIZA NAEEM BUKHARI VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB
Art.204---Contempt of Court---unconditional apology---Effect---unconditional apology was tendered by

contemnor in Court through his affidavit, which showed his repentance and remorse in the sincerest manner and
merited to be accepted---High Court warned the contemnor to remain careful in future and order issuing notice for
contempt of Court was recalled in circumstances.

Citation Name: 2016 PLD 497 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case 
Case Description
Ch. IMRAN RAZA CHADHAR VS State
Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003--3 , Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003--4 , Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils
Act 1973--42 , Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act 1973--54 ,
Ss. 42 & 54---Contempt of Court Ordinance (V of 2003), Ss.3 & 4---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 204---Advocate
High Court---Contemptuous attitude and misconduct---Frustrating the proceedings of court---Suspension of
P L D 2020
practicing Islamabad 109 apology tendered---Defiling the dignity, honour and prestige of the court could
licence---unconditional
not be tolerated atMinallah,
Before Athar C.J. profession required respect for the law and the judicial institution---Bar leaders
any cost---Legal
THE
and STATE---Petitioner
elders with the consent of contemnor-advocate assured the Court that in future such events would not be
repeated
Versus by any member of the Bar, and proposed that suspension of the advocate's professional licence be
maintained
DR. FIRDOUSfor a period of oneAWAN---Respondent
ASHIQ month and he be allowed to deposit a certain sum of money with the Diagnostic
Centre of the High Court Bar Association as a token of respect for the institution---High Court accepted the proposals
of the Bar on behalf of the contemnor-advocate and issued directions accordingly.
----Ss. 2(b) & 6(1)(c)---Constitution
Head Notes Case Description of Pakistan, Arts. 10-A & 204(2)---Criminal contempt---
Citation
contemptName:
was2016notYLRto 1845 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
elevate the Court nor to protect the dignity of a judge; its exercise
Bookmark was
this Case 
The HEAD OF RETAIL FINANCE DIVISION, THE BANK OF PUNJAB VS MUSHTAQ AHMAD
Administration
dignity andofdecorum
Justice--TERM
of the, Constitution
Courts andofthe Pakistan 1973--199 ,of
administration Intra Courtwas
justice Appeal--Term
inevitable , Law
forReforms
upholding
Ordinance 1972--3 ,
Category
Art. 199---LawofReforms
criminal contempt
Ordinance (XIIwas to safeguard
of 1972), S. 3---Intrathe right
court to a fair trial of the
appeal---Administration litigants regardless
of justice---Appellant Bank
of the
was natureofororder
aggrieved gravity of the
passed crime.Judge of High Court whereby Constitutional petition filed by respondent
by Single
was disposed
Ambard of on the basis of undertaking
v. Attorney-General for Trinidad given
andbyTobago
Bank Manager---Validity---Appellant
[1936] 1 All ER 704; St. Bank James'swasEvening
not given
proper
Post (1942) 2 Atk at 469;Vine Products Ltd. v. Mackenzie and Co. Ltd. [1965] 3 All ER 58;proper
opportunity to contest constitutional petition nor report and para-wise comments were awaited---No Re
hearing was given to appellant and simply on undertaking given by its Manager, the petition was disposed of---
Manager of appellant Bank was not authorized by appellant to give the undertaking---Bank had produced official
documents which reflected that show cause notice was issued regarding matter in hand to the Manager who in reply
Military
had Gazette' and apology
sought unconditional anotherforPLDgiving1963 SC 170; PLD
said undertaking 2018 SC that
while submitting 738;
his PLD 2018 before
appearance SC 773;Court
Contempt Proceedings against Imran Khan, Chairman, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Inshaf PLD
was only in obedience of the court and nothing else---Division Bench of High Court, set aside the order in question 2014 SC
and remanded the matter to Single Judge of High Court for decision afresh in accordance with law---Intra court
appeal was allowed accordingly.
Citation Name: 2016 PLD 159 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case 
SAJID RAFIQUE VS GHULAM DASTGIR KHAN
PLD 1973 SC 525,
Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003--3 , Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003--4 , Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003-
-5 , Contempt of Court--TERM ,
Ss. 3, 4 & 5---Contempt of Court---unconditional apology---Refusal to accept apology earlier by Court---

Contemnors realized that no one was above law irrespective of his status and that even time factor could not defeat
due process of law---Contemnors were really ashamed of what they did, felt sorry and penitent and they bow their
heads in shame with drooped shoulders---Effect---Contemnors were really ashamed of what they did and their
unconditional apology was genuine and sincere---Contempt stood purged, when contemnor had thrown himself
unconditionally at the mercy of Court---Mere fact that Court had earlier declined to accede to request of contemnors
for seeking forgiveness could not take away the Court from giving second thought to their incumbent entreatment for
unconditional apology---Grace was in forgiving and not in being harsh---Refusal by Court to show mercy to
contemnor could go against Islamic jurisprudence---High Court wound up contempt proceedings and acceded to
unconditional apology---Contempt notice was discharged in circumstances.
Citation Name: 2016 PLD 618 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case 
ABID S. ZUBERI VS Khawaja SHAMS-UL-ISLAM
PLD 1998 SC 823, PLD 2012 SC 923, PLD 2013 SC 413, PLD 2014 SC 367,
Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003--11 , Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003--6 , Contempt of Court Ordinance
2003--7 , Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003--9 , Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act 1973--42 , Legal
Case Description
Practitioners and Bar Councils Act 1973--54 ,
Ss. 6, 7, 9 & 11---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 204---Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act (XXXV of 1973), Ss.
42 & 54---Criminal and judicial contempt of court by advocates---Use of abusive and contemptuous language against
Judge of the High Court---unconditional apology tendered by contemnors---Effect---Show cause notices, discharge
of---Alleged contemnors instead of defending the allegations or contesting the contempt proceedings on merits,
surrendered
P L D 2020 themselves
Islamabadat the mercy of the Court by tendering unconditional apology---Such unqualified apology
109
tendered soon after issuance of show cause notices for alleged contempt of court and professional misconduct was
accepted by the High Court, and show cause notices for contempt of court were discharged---High Court observed
that the alleged contemnors should be careful in future and abstain themselves from indulging in any such act, which
Versus
may in any manner lower the dignity and honour of the Court or the Judges, and should ensure to conduct
DR. FIRDOUS
themselves ASHIQ
in a manner, whichAWAN---Respondent
was required from every professional lawyer, who was expected to demonstrate the
Criminal Orginal No.270 of
highest norms of ethics and decency;2019,
thatdecided on 25th
if the alleged November,
contemnors 2019.
indulged themselves in any such activity, which
in(a)
anyContempt
manner wasof Court Ordinance
contemptuous (V ofin2003)---
or scandalous nature, then, they would expose themselves to legal proceedings
in----Ss.
accordance
2(b)with
& law without any further leniency
6(1)(c)---Constitution in such regard.
of Pakistan, Arts. 10-A & 204(2)---Criminal contempt---
justified
Citation on 2015
Name: the touchstone of ensuring access to an adjudicatory process Bookmark
GBLR 355 SUPREME-APPELLATE-COURT by an independent
this Case 
COMPLAINT
dignity andAGAINST
decorum AGPR GILGIT
of the CourtsVS and the administration of justice was inevitable for upholding
the 61
Arts. rule&of75---Suo
law andmotuto ensure that of
jurisdiction disputes were decided
the Supreme Appellatein Court---Contempt
a fair and uninfluenced
of Court, manner---
notice for---
Category ofand
unconditional criminal contempt
unqualified apology wasby to safeguard the right to a fair
contemnors---Effect---Discharge of trial of the
contempt litigants regardless
notice---Complaint against
Accountant General Pakistan Revenue, Gilgit-Baltistan and his office staff---Disrespect and disgrace to the Court---
Interruption
Ambard v. and intervention in the work/affairs
Attorney-General for Trinidad of the
andCourt---Raising
Tobago [1936] slogans
1 Allderogatory
ER 704;toSt.theJames's
honour and respect
Evening
ofPost
the Court---Chief
(1942) 2 Atk at 469;Vine Products Ltd. v. Mackenzie and Co. Ltd. [1965] 3 All ER 58; Reat
Judge, Supreme Appellate Court sanctioned purchase of an old vehicle for Liaison Office
Islamabad---Accountant General Pakistan Revenue, Gilgit-Baltistan cancelled the cheque issued for the purpose of
purchase of said vehicle---Staff of Accountant General office also called a strike and raised derogatory slogans and
staged an agitation at the main gate of the Court---Accountant General and his office staff were issued show-cause
Military
notices Gazette'of and
for contempt another PLD
court---Accountant 1963and
General SChis170; PLD 2018
staff officials SC before
appeared 738; the
PLD court2018 SC in773;
in person reply
Contempt Proceedings against Imran Khan, Chairman, Pakistan Tehreek-e-Inshaf
to the show-cause notice---Accountant General realized his misconduct and showed his sincere repentance and PLD 2014 SC
tendered unconditional and unqualified apology---Staff officials of Accountant General's office appeared before the
Court and surrendered themselves at the mercy of the Court and claimed unconditional and unqualified apology
and showed their repentance---Supreme Appellate Court accepted such apology and discharged the contempt
notices against the Accountant General and his office staff---Suo motu case was disposed of accordingly.
Citation Name: 2015 GBLR 175 SUPREME-APPELLATE-COURT Bookmark this Case 
COMPLAINT AGAINST CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY VS
Art. 61---Suo motu jurisdiction of Supreme Appellate Court---Matter concerning complaint against Civil Aviation
Authority for not starting flights between Skardu and Gilgit as per direction of the Supreme Appellate Court---
Concerned officials of Civil Aviation Authority appeared before the court and tendered unconditional apology and
placed themselves at the mercy of the court---Said officials also made a request to be allowed to withdraw the
parawise comments filed by them earlier---Supreme Appellate Court accepted the unconditional apology tendered
by the concerned officials and warned them to be careful in future and pay respect to the judiciary---Supreme
Appellate Court directed that the parawise comments already filed by concerned officials be returned to them and
the copy of written submission regarding tendering of unconditional apology be placed on record---Suo motu case
was disposed of accordingly.
Citation Name: 2015 PLD 1 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Bookmark this Case 
ROBKAR-E-ADALAT VS MUHAMMAD YOUNAS ARVI
Contempt of Court--TERM ,
Contemnor---unconditional apology tendered by contemnor at the earliest opportunity---Effect---Leniency by court-
--Where apology had been tendered by the contemnor at the earliest opportunity before framing of charge, the
Case Description
Court showed leniency and grace in accepting such apology---Although submission of apology could not wipe off
the gravity of contempt, however, the act of tendering unconditional apology was always important and considered
sympathetically.
P L D 2020 Islamabad 109

BeforeName:
Citation Athar2015Minallah, C.J.
PLD 1 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Bookmark this Case 
ROBKAR-E-ADALAT VS MUHAMMAD YOUNAS ARVI
Versus
DR.Jammu
Azad FIRDOUS ASHIQ
and Kashmir AWAN---Respondent
Contempt of Court Act 1993--3 , Azad Jammu and Kashmir Contempt of Court Act 1993-
-7Criminal
, Azad Jammu
Orginal No.270 of 2019, decidedand
and Kashmir Legal Practitioners on Bar
25thCouncils Act 1995--51
November, 2019. , Contempt of Court proceedings--
Term
(a) ,Contempt
Suspension of of license--Term
Court Ordinance , (V of 2003)---
S.----Ss. 2(b)Jammu
51---Azad & 6(1)(c)---Constitution
and Kashmir Contempt of of Pakistan, Arts. of
Court Act (XXVII 10-A & Ss.3
1993), 204(2)---Criminal contempt---of
& 7---Advocate---Suspension
Object and scope---Criminal
license---Contempt contempt pertained
of court proceedings---Scandalizing thetosuperior
acts done with the intent
judiciary---Bringing of obstructing,
authority of courts and
administration of law into disrepute---Application for unconditional apology at
impeding or preventing due process of justice---Object of exercising the power of criminal the earliest opportunity---Expressing
regret---Effect---Revival
contempt was not to of license
elevateand thedischarge
Court norof contempt proceedings---Applicant,
to protect the dignity of a judge; who wasitsanexercise
advocate,was
wrote
a letter to the Chief Justice of the High Court, wherein he made certain allegations against Judges of the High Court
and Shariat Court---After issuance of show cause notice applicant-advocate was found guilty of scandalizing the
superior judiciary and bringing authority of courts and administration of law into disrepute---Applicant's license of
dignity and
advocacy was decorum
suspendedofand the separate
Courts and the administration
contempt proceedings were of justice was inevitable
also initiated for upholding
against him---Subsequently
the rulemoved
applicant of law an and to ensure
application that disputes
to withdraw the letterwere decided
he had writteninand
a fair and uninfluenced
tendered manner---
unconditional apology and
Categoryregret
expressed of criminal contemptthat
for his act---Held, wasapplicant
to safeguard the right
had tendered to a fairand
unqualified trial of the litigants
unconditional regardless
apology and had
of thehimself
thrown natureatorthe gravity
mercyofofthethecrime.
court---Applicant did not try to justify the contents of the letter---Unqualified
apology
Ambard tendered by applicant wasfor
v. Attorney-General endorsed
Trinidad by and
the President, Senior 1Vice
Tobago [1936] AllPresident
ER 704;and St. General
James'sSecretary
Eveningof
District
Post (1942) 2 Atk at 469;Vine Products Ltd. v. Mackenzie and Co. Ltd. [1965] 3 All ER 58;byRethe
Bar Association, to which the applicant belonged---Conduct of applicant was seriously condemned
said representatives of the District Bar Association and they also guaranteed that applicant would not repeat the
alleged offence in future---Unqualified apology tendered by applicant was accepted and order of suspension of his
license along with contempt notice were discharged---However, High Court observed that applicant should be careful
Military
about dignityGazette'
of courts, and
that heanother
should actPLD 1963 inSC
prudently 170;
future andPLD
should2018 SC 738;
not indulge in actsPLD
which2018 SC 773;
were unbecoming
ofContempt
an officer orProceedings against law
of the court, otherwise Imran Khan,
would Chairman,
take its Pakistan Tehreek-e-Inshaf
own course---Application PLD 2014 SC
was allowed accordingly.
Citation Name: 2014 GBLR 225 SUPREME-APPELLATE-COURT Bookmark this Case 
ROZEENA KHATOON VS GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN
Ss. 3 & 4---Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art. 60---Contempt of court---
unconditional apology---Both respondents had wilfully contumaciously acted in disobedience of the direction
passed by Supreme Appellate Court and acted in order to obstruct the process of justice, to lower the honour and
dignity of the court---Both said officials colluded to frustrate the order passed by the court which was tantamount to
contempt of court---Act of both said persons seemed to be deliberate and intentional---Said officials tendered
unconditional apology before the Supreme Appellate Court and showed their remorse and compunction; they
assured the court that in future, they would remain careful with regard to the cases of their department pending
before the courts---unconditional apology tendered by both the officials seemed to be genuine and from core of
their hearts---No further action was required in the matter and show-cause notices issued were discharged by the
Supreme Appellate Court.
Citation Name: 2014 PLD 367 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case 
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST IMRAN KHAN, CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN TEHREEK-I-INSAF VS
PLD 1998 SC 823, PLD 2012 SC 923, PLD 2013 SC 413,
Constitution of Pakistan 1973--204 , Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003--3 , Contempt of Court--TERM , Judicial
restraint--Term ,
Art. 204---Contempt of Court Ordinance (IV of 2003), S.3---Contempt of Court---contempt arising out of scandalous
remarks regarding Judiciary---Judicial restraint---Islamic principles of forgiveness and pardon---Principle of showing
Case Description
judicial restraint, particularly in the cases relating to the purported scandalization of the judiciary through oral
remarks, was a well-recognized principle in judicial history of Pakistan which had been time and again reiterated by
the Court---Golden principles of ( ) forgiveness/remission and ( ) pardon, as enshrined in Islam, were one of the
hallmarks of the Islamic system of dispensation of justice---Prudent Qazi/Judge entrusted withBookmark taskof
this Case
the onerous
dispensation of justice was supposed to be more composed and cool minded so as to tactfully deal with such pity
notions and remarks, which might have been made in good faith or due to a slip of the tongue---Just and fair
P L D 2020
remarks, made Islamabad
unconsciously109or under the tide of momentary emotions, in somewhat harsh language, were not to
be readily taken in the negativeC.J.
Before Athar Minallah, sense, but as means for soul-searching and improvement in the system and in such
circumstances, depending upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case, for shown magnanimity, restraint
and grace in his conduct, a Qazi/Judge was not required to wait for an unconditional apology from the person
Versus
charged with the allegations of using indecent language against him or for scandalizing the judiciary as an institution.
Criminal
Head Notes
OrginalCase No.270 of 2019, decided on 25th November, 2019.
Description
ObjectName:
Citation and scope---Criminal contempt pertained to acts done with the intent
2014 PLD 367 SUPREME-COURT of obstructing,
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST IMRAN KHAN, CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN TEHREEK-I-INSAF VS
justified of
Constitution onPakistan
the touchstone
1973--204 ,of ensuring
Contempt access
of Court to an 2003--3
Ordinance adjudicatory process
, Contempt by an independent
of Court--TERM ,
Art. 204---Contempt of Court Ordinance (IV of 2003), S.3---Contempt of Court---Submission of unconditional
dignitybyand
apology decorum
alleged of the Courts and the administration
contemnor---Effect---Submission of justice
of an unconditional was inevitable
apology for contemnor
by the alleged upholdingin
the case
every rule was
of law anda condition
neither to ensureprecedent,
that disputes wereof decided
nor a point in a fair
ego or prestige and
for the uninfluenced
courts, manner---
which practice was to be
Category
adhered to inofeach
criminal
case contempt
as a rule ofwas to safeguard
thumb the right the
before discharging to ashow-causes
fair trial ofnotice---Mere
the litigantssubmission
regardlessof
of the natureapology,
unconditional or gravity of thewas
similarly, crime.
also no ground for further inaction in the proceedings or for discharge of such
notice
Ambardwithout looking into the intent
v. Attorney-General forbehind such and
Trinidad notice; and rather,
Tobago [1936] it would
1 All entirely
ER 704;depend upon theEvening
St. James's facts and
circumstances
Post (1942) 2 Atk at 469;Vine Products Ltd. v. Mackenzie and Co. Ltd. [1965] 3 All ER 58;during
of each case, particularly the stance taken by the alleged contemnor qua his overall conduct Re
such proceedings before the Court which would enable the Court seized of the matter to form an opinion about strict
adherence to such a practice or otherwise.
Military
Head Notes Gazette' and
Description
Citation Name: 2014 YLR 2415 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case 
TALAT WAHEED KHAN VS GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN
Constitution of Pakistan 1973--199 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--204 , Constitutional petition--TERM , Contempt

of Court--TERM , Submission of unconditional apology--Term ,
Ss.204 & 199---Constitutional petition---Contempt of Court---unconditional apology---Effect---Provincial

Government through its Secretary submitted an unqualified apology, therefore, High Court discharged the notice
already issued---High Court warned the respondent to be careful in future---Constitutional petition was disposed of
accordingly.
MARAJUDDIN VS NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CARDIO VASCULAR DISEASES
Civil service--Term , Misconduct--TERM , Removal from Service--TERM ,
Removal from service--- Misconduct--- Admission of guilt/misconduct---Effect---Civil servant was charge sheeted
twice on the allegation of misconduct and both times he was found guilty by the enquiry committees---Civil servant
was also provided an opportunity of personal hearing---Civil servant submitted his acceptance of misconduct in
writing and tendered an unconditional apology---Competent authority found him guilty of charges levelled against
him and imposed upon him major penalty of removal from service---Appeals filed by civil servant before concerned
Department and Service Tribunal respectively also failed---Contention of civil servant was that he submitted his
written acceptance of misconduct on the assurance of the Department that he would be exonerated of the charges---
Validity---Civil servant did not place on record the document by which he accepted his misconduct---Department
provided opportunities of hearing to the civil servant and thereafter passed impugned order of his removal from
service on the basis of serious allegations of misconduct---Civil servant also admitted all the allegations of
misconduct made against him---No question of public importance within the meaning of Art. 212(3) of the
Constitution had been pointed out by the civil servant---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed by the Supreme
Court in circumstances and leave was refused.
Case Description
Senator Haji ADEEL VS Raja M. ABBAS Bookmark this Case 
Constitution of Pakistan 1973--184 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--204 , Contempt of Court--TERM , Submission of

unconditional
P L D 2020apology--Term
Islamabad ,109
Before
Arts. 204(2)Athar Minallah, C.J.
& 184(3)---Contempt of Court---Submission of unconditional apology---Effect---Alleged contemnor had
addressed a letter to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court wherein he had used contemptuous language against
Versus
the judiciary---Alleged contemnor submitted unconditional apology in the Supreme Court---Supreme Court
DR. FIRDOUS
observed that since ASHIQ AWAN---Respondent
an unconditional apology had been filed, therefore, no further action was called for in the
matter.
impeding
Citation Name: or 2013
preventing
SCMR 346 due process of justice---Object of exercising the Bookmark
SUPREME-COURT power ofthiscriminal
Case 
Senator Haji on
justified ADEELthe VS Raja M. ABBAS
touchstone of ensuring access to an adjudicatory process by an independent
adjudicator
Constitution and to protect
of Pakistan 1973--184 the fairness ofof the
, Constitution legal1973--204
Pakistan process ,for every of
Contempt litigant---Safeguarding
Court Ordinance 2003--3 the,
dignity and
Discharge decorum
of notice of the ofCourts
for Contempt and the
Court--Term , administration of justice was inevitable for upholding
Arts. 204(2) & 184(3)---Contempt of Court Ordinance (V of 2003), S.3---Contempt of Court proceedings---
Submission of unconditional apology---Effect---Discharge of notice for Contempt of Court---Alleged contemnor,
of the
who was nature oragravity
leader of political of the delivered
party, crime. a speech addressing the general public, wherein he cast uncalled for
Ambard and
aspersions v. Attorney-General
expressions againstfor Trinidad
Judges of theand Tobago
Supreme [1936] 1 AllCourt
Court---Supreme ER 704;
issuedSt. James's
notice underEvening
Art.204 of
Post
the (1942) 2read
Constitution Atkwith
at 469;Vine ProductsofLtd.
S.3 of the Contempt v. Ordinance,
Court Mackenzie andtoCo.
2003 Ltd. [1965]
the alleged 3 AlltoER
contemnor 58; as
explain Reto
why he should
Truth not be proceeded
and Sportsman against 37
Ltd. (1937) for SRNSW
Contempt 242;
of Court in accordance
Attorney Generalwithv.the Constitution
Times and theLtd.
Newspapers law---
Alleged contemnor submitted unconditional apology in the Supreme Court, wherein
[1973] 3 All ER 54; The Attorney General of Pakistan v. Abdul Hamid Sheikh, Editor, 'Civil and he had shown honour and
respect to the Supreme Court and made commitment that in future he shall do everything to uphold the dignity of
Judges---Contempt notice issued to alleged contemnor was discharged, in circumstances.
Senator Haji ADEEL VS Raja M. ABBAS
Constitution of Pakistan 1973--184 , Constitution of Pakistan 1973--204 , Contempt of Court--TERM , Submission of

unconditional apology--Term ,
Arts. 204(2) & 184(3)---Contempt of Court---Submission of unconditional apology--- Effect--- Alleged contemnor
had used expressions against the institution of Supreme Court during a press conference---Alleged contemnor
submitted unconditional apology in the Supreme Court---Supreme Court observed that since an unconditional
apology had been filed, therefore, no further action was called for in the matter.
Citation Name: 2013 CLC 437 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case 
Mrs. SHAHIDA HUSSAIN VS KARACHI AMERICAN SCHOOL
1993 MLD 425, 1997 SCMR 193, PLD 2011 SC 680, PLD 2012 SC 466,
Civil Procedure Code --Order XI of C.P.C. Discovery and Inspection--14 , Civil Procedure Code --Order XI of C.P.C.
Discovery and Inspection--21 , Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003--3 ,
S. 3---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XI, Rr.14 & 21---Order for production of document by High Court---Non-
compliance with such order---Effect---Neither any adverse inference could be taken nor consequences provided
under O.XI, R.21, C.P.C. would apply to non-compliance with such order for being distinct from an order of discovery
of document---Courts would pass orders for implementation and execution and not for merely drawing an adverse
inference in case of its non-compliance---Order once passed, however, should be implemented/obeyed unless same
was set aside, reviewed or recalled, otherwise same would become redundant and meaningless making
administration of justice impossible---Non-compliance with such order would amount to contempt of Court---
unconditional apology tendered by contemnor before issuance of show-cause notice was accepted while directing
him to comply with such order, otherwise strict action would be taken against him---Principles.
Case Description
Read More

Notes on Cases
P L D 2020 Islamabad 109 January

Before Athar Minallah, C.J. CLC Notes
YLR Notes
Versus
DR. FIRDOUS ASHIQ AWAN---Respondent PCrLJ Notes

Journals
January
contempt was not to PLD elevate the Court nor to protect the dignity of SCMR
a judge; its exercise was
justified on the touchstone
CLD of ensuring access to an adjudicatory processPTD by an independent
MLD PLC
the rule of law and toCLC ensure that disputes were decided in a fair andYLR uninfluenced manner---
Category of criminalPCrLJ
contempt was to safeguard the right to a fair trial GBLR
of the litigants regardless
Miscellaneous
 Circulars
 General Orders
 Notifications
New Statutes
 Federal
 Punjab
 KPK
 Balochistan
 Sindh
Copyrights © 2023 by Oratier Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd. (//oratier.tech)

This site is developed & maintained Oratier Technologies (Pvt.) Ltd. (//oratier.tech)
Help (/Login/HelpPage) FAQ's Sitemap

Pakistan Law Site 109

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pakistan Law Site 109

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Description ×

Statutes Search Bookmark this Case 

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2021 PCrLJ 644 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case 

MAQBOOL AHMAD VS State

S. 498---Pre-arrest bail---Certificate qua pendency of bail petition, falsity of---Professional misconduct---Scope---

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2020 PLD 26 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case 

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2020 PLC 72 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Bookmark this Case 

DEEN MUHAMMAD VS LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2020 PLD 109 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case 

State VS DR. FIRDOUS ASHIQ AWAN

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2020 PLD 109 ISLAMABAD Bookmark this Case 

State VS DR. FIRDOUS ASHIQ AWAN

Ss. 3 & 5---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 204(2)---Contempt of Court---unconditional apology by contemnor---

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2019 SCMR 542 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case 

TALAL AHMED CHAUDHRY VS State

Head Notes Case Description

NFC EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. VS

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2018 SCMR 1385 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case 

CH. IFTIKHAR AHMED, I.-G., ISLAMABAD VS State

Citation Name: 2018 SCMR 1385 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case 

CH. IFTIKHAR AHMED, I.-G., ISLAMABAD VS State

S. 3---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 204(2)---Contempt of Court---unconditional apology tendered by alleged

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2018 SCMR 1183 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case 

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2018 SCMR 556 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case 

CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SENATOR NEHAL HASHMI VS

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2017 MLD 547 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Bookmark this Case 

State VS ALI AMIN GHANDAPUR

PLD 2007 SC 688,

S.3---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.204---Contempt of Court---unconditional apology---Effect---Contempt notice was

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2017 MLD 2105 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case 

Mst. FIZA NAEEM BUKHARI VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB

Art.204---Contempt of Court---unconditional apology---Effect---unconditional apology was tendered by

Head Notes Case Description

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2016 PLD 159 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Bookmark this Case 

SAJID RAFIQUE VS GHULAM DASTGIR KHAN

PLD 1973 SC 525,

Ss. 3, 4 & 5---Contempt of Court---unconditional apology---Refusal to accept apology earlier by Court---

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2016 PLD 618 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Bookmark this Case 

ABID S. ZUBERI VS Khawaja SHAMS-UL-ISLAM

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2015 GBLR 175 SUPREME-APPELLATE-COURT Bookmark this Case 

COMPLAINT AGAINST CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY VS

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2015 PLD 1 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Bookmark this Case 

ROBKAR-E-ADALAT VS MUHAMMAD YOUNAS ARVI

P L D 2020 Islamabad 109

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2014 GBLR 225 SUPREME-APPELLATE-COURT Bookmark this Case 

ROZEENA KHATOON VS GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN

Head Notes Case Description

Citation Name: 2014 PLD 367 SUPREME-COURT Bookmark this Case 