Get Criminal Lawyer in Lahore Pakistan For Contempt Proceeding 2020

Criminal Lawyer in Lahore Pakistan and Contempt Proceedings:

Advocate Nazia is an expert criminal lawyer in Lahore Pakistan. Court has stated above that petitioner has wasted the precious time of this Court which is a public time because after moving the contempt application he has entered into a compromise with respondent/S.H.O., he shall be taken into custody and sent to camp jail, for seven days. Rs.5,000/ as fine and in default 15 days the sentence will be increased. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Fine will be deposited in the offices 7 days' sentence awarded. (2001 PCr.R 731)  Habeas corpus petition. Contempt of court was filed by a criminal lawyer in Lahore Pakistan. Assistant Commissioner and the SSI-I.O. of the police station concerned had prima facie created hindrance in the discharge of the duty of the bailiff who was a Court representative and as such had made themselves liable for proceedings under Sec.3 & 4 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1976. Notices were, therefore, directed to be issued to the said Assistant Commissioner and the S.H.O. to show cause as to why they should not be punished for having committed the contempt of Court by creating hindrance and using uncalled for language 3 against the bailiff of High Court when he was present in the police station concerned in the discharge of his duty. (2001 PCr.LJ 1446) 

Habeas Corpus Proceedings:

 Criminal lawyer in Lahore Pakistan stated that when the bailiff who was deputed to recover detenus went to recover the detenus the respondent misbehaved with the bailiff and also tried to bribe him. Statement of the bailiff about said misbehavior made before the Court could not be disbelieved. Respondent having tendered unconditional apology Court took a lenient view and convicted and sentenced him to undergo one month's Sol. with fine PCr.LJ 1833). 

Contempt of Court:

Habeas corpus proceedings by a criminal lawyer in Lahore Pakistan was filed.   S.H.O. of Police Station where the raid was conducted by a bailiff in habeas corpus proceedings had depicted extreme highhandedness towards bailiff of Court and resorted to threats as well as intimidatory behavior to bailiff during habeas corpus proceedings. Said police official practically and physically detained bailiff for four hours in reporting room of police station and also passed certain derogatory remarks towards the Court during a raid conducted O by bailiff Police official did not contest show-cause notice issued to him, but asked for an unconditional apology and put himself at mercy of Court with the explanation that he had thirty-nine years police service to his credit. The official had acted in a manner that amounted to bringing the authority of Court into disrespect and disrepute and obstructing the process of the Court.

Bailiff when deputed through a criminal lawyer in Lahore Pakistan to recover a detenu while exercising powers under S.491, Cr.P.C. or under Art. 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), acted as a representative of the High Court. Contempt Of Court committed by police officers could not be treated lightly despite his long service of thirty-nine years. Said official after such a long service should have been more careful instead Of what he had done; High Court taking a lenient view of the matter sentenced the official to one month and a fine of Rs.  LJ 1016(a))  snatching Roznamcha from Bailiff of High  Court and trying to interfere, obstruct and interrupt the order of Court passed in habeas corpus petition which led to the recovery of detenue Notice ordered to be issued to M.H.C., C.I.A. Staff to show cause as to why proceedings u/s. 3 of Contempt of Court Act be not initiated against him and he is punished according to law. (PLJ 1989 Cr. C. (Lab.) 534)  Notice to petitioners to show cause why he should not be procreated for filling false applications.--Petitioner reiterating that be had not filed a false application but had stated facts as they are. Petitioner further stated that his wife (detenue) was not living with him, Notice vacated.(NLR 1986 UC 2(1))

Where the respondent accepted the notice issued by the High Court and gave an understanding that he would arrange to produce the detenus before the High Court on the date fixed at subsequently he denied that he had ever kept the detenue in detention or given any undertaking to produce them in Court as alleged. The High Court found that the appellant detained the detenue and disobeyed the Court's order despite his assurance to produce the detenue before the Court. The conviction of the respondent for contempt of Court was justified.

About This Author

IqbalAli Joined: July 30th, 2020