IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
  (Original Jurisdiction) 
 
Present: 
 
Mr. Justice Jawwad S. Khawaja 
 
Mr. Justice Khilji Arif Hussain 
 
 
Criminal Original Petition No. 70 of 2012. 
(Contempt proceedings against ‘Weekly Pulse’) 
 
For the prosecution: 
Mr. Shah Khawar, ASC/Prosecutor 
 
Dr. Faqir Hussain, Registrar, SCP 
 
Mr. Shahid Hussain, PRO, SCP 
 
Mr. Umar Salman, DPM, SCP (witnesses) 
 
For the alleged contemners: Dr. A. Basit, Sr. ASC 
 
Mohsin J. Baig, Editor-in-Chief (Weekly Pulse) 
 
Samar Rao, Editor Production, Pulse.  
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
04.06.2013 
 
ORDER 
 
Jawwad S. Khawaja, J. When this case was called, we asked Mr. Shah Khawar to 
proceed with the case, call the witnesses for the prosecution because the hearing today had 
been fixed for this purpose. Dr. A. Basit, learned Sr. ASC, however, intervened and insisted 
that Crl. MA 329 of 2013 be heard. When he was to proceed with the case, he refused and 
instead recorded the following statement:- 
“Having been refused to argue on the basis of Crl.MA 329/2013 which was filed 
consequent to decision of the Judge-in-Chambers whereby certain affidavits which 
have been attempted to be placed earlier were returned in original by the Office 
and the Judge-in-Chambers had allowed the petition to be documented whereafter 
the relevancy of those affidavits were to be first decided by this Court. Since my 
entire case is based on the premise that the email allegedly fabricated by me was 
in fact originated from a computer under the control of the Registrar from a 
previous address, I will not be in a position to effectively discharge my 
professional obligations unless Crl.MA No. 329/2013 is first permitted to be 
presented and adjudicated”.  
 
2. 
Learned counsel for the respondents also subsequently filed a statement in his own 
hand writing which has been placed on record. 
3. 
This case has been pending before us since 26.7.2012. The order sheet shows that the 
respondents were repeatedly given adjournments at their request. Such adjournment requests 
appear to have been made with the object of delaying the adjudication of this petition. This is 
evident from the contents of the order sheet which are summarized below: 
Crl. Org. P. 70 of 2012 
2
a) On 1.8.2012 further time for submitting the reply was given to the respondent 
Mohsin J. Baig and the case was ordered to be re-listed thereafter.  
b) On 11.9.2012 at the request of Mohsin J. Baig and in the interest of justice, the 
case was adjourned. 
c) On 25.9.2012 (i.e. more than 8 months ago) the charge against the respondents 
was framed and the case was fixed for recording of evidence on 3.10.2012. 
d) On 3.10.2012 learned counsel representing the respondents made a request 
for adjournment on the ground that he had not been able to prepare the case 
and needed some time. This request though unjustified was allowed in the 
interest of justice and the case was adjourned. 
e) On 17.10.2012 we observed that both respondents will “have their right to due 
process and fair trial”. The respondents sought another adjournment. In order 
to meet the ends of justice and to ensure due process to the respondents, the 
case was again adjourned for recording of evidence of witnesses on both 
sides. We also made it clear to the respondents “that further adjournment shall 
not be allowed because it is in the interest of the alleged contemners and the 
administration of justice that this matter is brought to an early conclusion”. 
f) On 4.12.2012 we once again reiterated that the proceedings be concluded at 
an early date as this would be in the interest of respondents and the 
administration of justice. We also noted that on 17.10.2012, learned counsel 
for the respondents had sought an adjournment as he had to go for some 
surgical procedure and was to be available after 5 days. The case was 
adjourned for a period longer than that requested to ensure “that the alleged 
contemners are not prejudiced in any manner”.  
g) On 18.12.2012 yet another request for adjournment was made on behalf of the 
respondents. Although we noted that the request for more time was 
unjustified, 
we 
adjourned 
the 
case 
“in 
order 
to 
ensure 
that 
the 
respondents/alleged contemners are not prejudiced in any manner”. 
h) On 9.1.2013 we observed “we would like to emphasize that the matter has already 
remained pending for an inordinate period since 26.7.2012. In our order dated 
18.9.2012, we had noted that it would be in the interest of the respondents and also in 
Crl. Org. P. 70 of 2012 
3
the interest of justice that this matter is proceeded with and decided without 
unnecessary delay”. We also ordered that “further adjournment will not be 
allowed”. 
i) On 28.3.2013 we noted that “the charge in this case was framed more than six 
months ago but the trial has not commenced”. We yet again observed that “in 
order to ensure that the respondents are not prejudiced in their defence and have 
adequate opportunity of hearing in the case”, the case was adjourned.  
j) On 9.4.2013 we once again noted the delay in adjudication of these contempt 
proceedings and observed that “no progress whatsoever has been made despite 
lapse of more than six months”. However, at the request of the respondents once 
more the case was adjourned in the interest of justice and in order not to 
prejudice the respondents in their defence.  
k) On 30.4.2013 we had noted that the order sheet “gives an indication that the 
respondents/alleged contemners do not wish that this case should proceed”. 
However, in order to ensure once again that prejudice is not caused to the 
respondents and to further the interests of justice, the case was adjourned yet 
again. It was also ordered that “the case will proceed on the next date of hearing 
and the respondents should, therefore, ensure attendance of their learned counsel on 
the said date”.  
4. 
From the above excerpts and references to the order sheet in this case, it is abundantly 
clear that the respondents have been making all out efforts to delay the adjudication of this 
case. Such delays are not conducive to the administration of justice. Today in furtherance of 
the same dilatory tactics, learned counsel referred to Criminal Misc. No. 329/2013, which had 
been filed on behalf of the respondents on 1.6.2013. This Crl. M.A. purports to be an 
“application under Order XXXIII Rule 5 and 6 Supreme Court Rule [sic] 1980 read with all other 
enabling provision [sic] to make appropriate orders to prepare the ground work for cross-examination of 
the prosecution witnesses in order to prevent miscarriage of justice”. It may be noted that the 
Crl.MA was filed on 1.6.2013 although it could have been filed much earlier if indeed an 
order was to be sought as prayed. No valid reason has been given for this delay. Reference 
made by learned counsel to Criminal Misc. Appeals No. 5 and 6 of 2013, is inapt in this matter 
Crl. Org. P. 70 of 2012 
4
as is evident from the Order dated 5.4.2013. The said Order is reproduced, for ease of 
reference, as under: 
 
 
“Dr. A. Basit, Sr. ASC for the Appellant in both appeals.  
Through these appeals filed under Order V Rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules, 
1980, the appellant has questioned the orders of the Institution Officer of this 
Court dated 28.1.2013 & 4.2.2013 whereby the applications filed by the appellant 
in Crl. O. P. No. 70 of 2012 were returned being not maintainable. The 
objections so raised alleged that the affidavit of the appellant contains 
“scandalous language”, that the affidavit sworn by Mr. Shahid Iqbal and Mr. 
Alexander Carte were not attested by the High Commission in England and that 
of Mr. Sajid Bashir sent from England was not sworn before an Oath 
Commissioner. The authenticity, validity, admissibility of the affidavits and the 
relevance of their contents to the Crl. O. P. No. 70 of 2012 would be best judged 
by the learned Bench before which the said contempt proceedings are pending. 
The appeals are therefore allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the 
Criminal Misc. Appeals be numbered and placed before the Hon’ble Bench 
hearing Criminal Original Petition No. 70 of 2012.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sd/- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                NASIR-UL-MULK 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
          JUDGE”   
 
5. 
The contents of Crl.MA 329/2013 identify areas of evidence e.g. Report of IT Expert 
Alexander Carte. The probative value of such evidence will be considered if and when it is 
properly brought on record.  
6. 
We have gone through the application (Crl. M.A. 329/2013). It is clear from the same 
that it represents an attempt, to delay the proceedings of this case. The concluding paragraph 
containing the prayer in the application is worth reproducing. It is as under: 
“In view of the above, it is prayed that prior to any substantive step is taken in the 
contempt proceedings, the following points may be taken up for consideration and 
adjudication: 
(i) 
Relevancy of the expert report as also other documents sought to be 
adduced on the record. 
(ii) 
Direction to the Registrar of Supreme Court to arrange for access of the 
same type to the aforesaid Expert as was granted to him by Copperstones 
Limited in U.K. 
Crl. Org. P. 70 of 2012 
5
(iii) 
Any other relief suited to the peculiar facts of this Case may also be 
granted”. 
7. 
It is obvious from the application and the prayer therein that the relevance of any 
report as also other documents is a matter to be dealt with once evidence is adduced. The 
respondent Mohsin J. Baig was asked if the IT expert mentioned in the Crl. M.A. No. 329/13 
namely Alexander Carte was presently available for the purpose of accessing the computer in 
the office of the Registrar. He stated clearly that the expert was not available. The respondent 
was, therefore, told that the expert should be made available before the next date of hearing 
and then he could be provided access to such computer because the object of the Court in 
these proceedings was to ascertain the facts. It is clear that no request for access to the 
computer in question was sought at any time during the past many months, nor has the 
availability of the IT expert been assured either today or at any earlier occasion. The 
respondents were once again informed that the imperatives of fair trial and due process will 
be assured in this case but they could not be permitted to delay the proceedings any further.  
8. 
Statements of Dr. Faqir Hussain, Registrar, Supreme Court (PW 1), Mr. Shahid 
Hussain Kamboyo, PRO (PW 2) and Mr. Omar Salman, DPM (PW 3) have been recorded. The 
documents produced by the witnesses have been duly exhibited.  
9. 
Mr. Mohsin J. Baig requested that his right of cross examination be reserved. 
Normally such request is not allowed, however, to provide yet another opportunity to the 
respondents, the matter is adjourned to 10.9.2013 as requested by the respondent on which 
date the respondent, if he so desires, can cross examine the PWs and also produce his 
witnesses including the IT expert in defence. The next date has been fixed at the express 
request of Mr. Mohsin J. Baig who sought the specific date after ascertaining the availability 
of his witnesses, including the IT expert he seeks to examine as his witness. As such further 
adjournments will not be allowed.       
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
4th June, 2013. 
A. Rehman/* 
Crl. Org. P. 70 of 2012 
6
Witness No. 1. (PW 1) 
Dr. Faqir Hussain s/o Ghulam  Bahadur aged 63 years, presently posted 
as Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan, resident of House No. 3, St. No. 
36, F-7/1, Islamabad. 
 
(On oath) 
 
That I produce my affidavit which bears my signatures Ex.P-1 sworn on 
8.12.2012. That whatever is stated in the said affidavit, is correct. I 
produce downloaded copy of email Ex.P-1/1. I produce publication of 
news in weekly ‘Pulse’ dated 22.6.2012 which includes news item with 
the heading “SC Registrar oversteps jurisdiction” as Ex.P-1/2. That on my 
instructions Mr. Shahid Hussain Kamboyo, Public Relations Officer vide 
letter dated 21st July, 2012 called upon Mr. Samar Rao, Editor Production 
to contradict news item published in their Magazine Weekly ‘Pulse’. I 
produce the same as Ex.P-1/3. I produce copy of news item dated 22-
28/6/12 published in the magazine weekly ‘Pulse’ under the heading 
“Unanswered Questions” as Ex.P-1/4. I produce copy of news item dated 
21-27/6/12 published in the magazine weekly ‘Pulse’ under the heading 
“When truth is at fault” as Ex.P-1/5. I produce copy of news item dated 
28.9.2012 published in the magazine weekly ‘Pulse’ under the heading 
“The emperor has no clothes” as Ex.P-1/6.  
XXXXX  
Respondent stated that in view of the statement made by his counsel, he 
is not in a position to cross examine the witness and requested that his 
right of cross examination may be reserved. 
 
RO&AC 
4.6.2013 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge
Crl. Org. P. 70 of 2012 
7
 
Witness No. 2. (PW 2) 
Mr. Shahid Hussain Kamboyo s/o Wali Dad aged 31 years, presently 
posted as Public Relations Officer in the Supreme Court of Pakistan 
resident of House No. 464, St. No. 17, Shahzad Town, Islamabad.  
 
(On oath) 
 
That I produce my affidavit which bears my signatures Ex.P-2 sworn on 
8.12.2012. That whatever is stated in the said affidavit, is correct. Under 
the instructions of the Registrar of this Court, I addressed a letter dated 
21st July, 2012 to Mr. Samar Rao Editor Production (respondent) through 
fax and email to publish contradiction of news item to set the record 
right on the news published in weekly ‘Pulse’ dated 22.6.2012 under the 
heading “SC Registrar oversteps jurisdiction”. This letter bears my 
signatures as Ex.P-2/1. Mr. Samar Rao, in reply sent an email on the 
basis of which news item was published in their magazine and I produce 
the same as Ex.P-2/2.  
XXXXX  
Respondent stated that in view of the statement made by his counsel, he 
is not in a position to cross examine the witness and requested that his 
right of cross examination may be reserved. 
 
RO&AC 
4.6.2013 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Crl. Org. P. 70 of 2012 
8
Witness No. 3. (PW 3) 
Mr. Omar Salman s/o Salman Absar aged 30 years, presently posted as 
Data Processing Manager, in the Supreme Court of Pakistan resident of 
House No. 171, Lane-6, Askari 10, Rawalpindi.  
 
(On oath) 
 
That I produce my affidavit which bears my signatures Ex.P-3 sworn on 
8.12.2012. That whatever is stated in the said affidavit, is correct. After I 
came to know about the alleged email published in weekly ‘Pulse’, I 
conducted an inquiry being the DPM and I produce my report as Ex.P-
3/1. I concluded that the email could not possibly have been originated 
from the email address i.e. registrar@supremecourtpakistan.com   
XXXXX  
Respondent stated that in view of the statement made by his counsel, he 
is not in a position to cross examine the witness and requested that his 
right of cross examination may be reserved. 
 
RO&AC 
4.6.2013 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge  
