ISLAMABAD - Former chief judge of Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) Rana Shamim on Tuesday filed an Intra Court Appeal (ICA) before the Islamabad High Court (IHC) challenging his indictment in a contempt of court case against him.
Shamim moved the ICA assailing an IHC single bench’s January 20 decision of indicting him in the contempt case and made journalist Ansar Abbasi and others as respondents.
He adopted that the IHC single bench framed the charges only against him while letting those who published his affidavit off the hook, which is illegal. He requested the court to set aside his indictment and quash the case.
In the ICA, he stated that whether it is just and fair the Appellant has been charged whereas respondent No 4 to 6 who has admitted to publication has been discharged of the contempt proceedings?
He said that whether in the light of the judgment reported in PLD 2012 SC 553 contempt proceeding No 309/21 is liable to be quashed or kept in sine die till the final decision in the instant constitution petition.
Rana further said that whether the appellant has committed any contempt under Article 204 (2) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 read with section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 (Ordinance V of 2003) punishable under section 5 of the said Ordinance?
He also asked that whether the continuance of the proceedings before the single judge would be futile exercise, waste of court’s time and abuse of process of court and whether the justice could be done in this case without forming a judicial commission to unearth the truth or the veracity of the facts?
He argued that the single judge has erred in law by discharging the respondents while framing the charge only against the appellant considering the case of the Appellant in on a better footing than that of Respondents No. 4, 5 and 6.
The former GB judge said that admittedly the contents of the affidavit were published by Ansar Abbasi in his news report. “Had the contents not been published no alleged contempt would have been committed,” he added.
He adopted that mere writing of the affidavit is not contempt. He continued that writing of the affidavit without publishing it is akin to mere thoughts of the appellant. “No one can be convicted for merely having certain thoughts,” he maintained.
Rana contended that other alleged contemnors who have admitted to the publication have been discharged while Appellant who have categorically denied any sort of publication whatsoever has been charged.
“Without the other alleged contemnors especially Abbasi being part of the trial it cannot be proved as to how the contents of the affidavit came into his possession,” argued the petitioner.
Therefore he prayed to the court that it may graciously accept the instant appeal and quash the proceedings in Criminal Original No 309/2021 pending adjudication at IHC being without lawful authority, without jurisdiction, Corum-non-Judice and of no legal effect.
He also requested the court that the order dated 20.1.2022 is unlawful and against right of the Appellant guaranteed by the Constitution. He further requested that meantime ad-interim injunction may kindly be solicited in the best interest of justice till the disposal of this appeal.
Shamim moved the ICA assailing an IHC single bench’s January 20 decision of indicting him in the contempt case and made journalist Ansar Abbasi and others as respondents.
He adopted that the IHC single bench framed the charges only against him while letting those who published his affidavit off the hook, which is illegal. He requested the court to set aside his indictment and quash the case.
In the ICA, he stated that whether it is just and fair the Appellant has been charged whereas respondent No 4 to 6 who has admitted to publication has been discharged of the contempt proceedings?
He said that whether in the light of the judgment reported in PLD 2012 SC 553 contempt proceeding No 309/21 is liable to be quashed or kept in sine die till the final decision in the instant constitution petition.
Rana further said that whether the appellant has committed any contempt under Article 204 (2) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 read with section 3 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 (Ordinance V of 2003) punishable under section 5 of the said Ordinance?
He also asked that whether the continuance of the proceedings before the single judge would be futile exercise, waste of court’s time and abuse of process of court and whether the justice could be done in this case without forming a judicial commission to unearth the truth or the veracity of the facts?
He argued that the single judge has erred in law by discharging the respondents while framing the charge only against the appellant considering the case of the Appellant in on a better footing than that of Respondents No. 4, 5 and 6.
The former GB judge said that admittedly the contents of the affidavit were published by Ansar Abbasi in his news report. “Had the contents not been published no alleged contempt would have been committed,” he added.
He adopted that mere writing of the affidavit is not contempt. He continued that writing of the affidavit without publishing it is akin to mere thoughts of the appellant. “No one can be convicted for merely having certain thoughts,” he maintained.
Rana contended that other alleged contemnors who have admitted to the publication have been discharged while Appellant who have categorically denied any sort of publication whatsoever has been charged.
“Without the other alleged contemnors especially Abbasi being part of the trial it cannot be proved as to how the contents of the affidavit came into his possession,” argued the petitioner.
Therefore he prayed to the court that it may graciously accept the instant appeal and quash the proceedings in Criminal Original No 309/2021 pending adjudication at IHC being without lawful authority, without jurisdiction, Corum-non-Judice and of no legal effect.
He also requested the court that the order dated 20.1.2022 is unlawful and against right of the Appellant guaranteed by the Constitution. He further requested that meantime ad-interim injunction may kindly be solicited in the best interest of justice till the disposal of this appeal.
