Contempt of Court in Pakistan: What the Law Says! Daily Legal Advice Series 8

 The general rule in Contempt of court proceedings is that the courts use this measure as a last resort, as they have due to regard to the freedom of speech of individuals or parties appearing in court.The courts at all levels in Pakistan are very  slow to entertain and to prosecute contempt proceedings, as cardinal rule in branch of contempt power in respect of scurrilous attack against a Judge or Court is a wise economy of use by Court of this jurisdiction–Silence and steady devotion by Judges to duty are best answers to irresponsible criticism- Additionally, committal for contempt of Court is a weapon to be used sparingly and always with reference to interest of administration of justice–it should be used only from a sense of duty and under pressure of public necessity–Object of contempt proceedings is not to afford protection to Judges personally from imputations to which they may be exposed as individuals, but it is intended to be a protection to public whose interest would be very much affected if by fact or conduct of any party, authority of Court is lowered and sense of confidence which people may have in administration of justice by it is weakened. Per : Ajmal Mian, C.J. Agreeing (FB) all 7 Judges) PLJ 1999 SC 2 73

 

  1. Defamatory news against Hon’ble Chief Justice—-Publication of–Contempt of court–Notice of–Respondents are truly sorry and repentant for having published a totally false report concerning Hon’blc Chief Justice and have done their best to mitigate their offence by publishing a detailed apology at a prominent place in their newspaper–Main object of contempt proceedings is to rehabilitate dignity and honour of court and these are never intended to avenge personal insults–Held: It is not appropriate to take any further action against respondents apart from issuing them a severe warning–Notices discharged. PLJ 1993 SC 793
  2. Prepared speech” and “Press talk”–Distinction–Distinction between “prepared speech” and “Press talk” is important for the purpose of deciding question, whether alleged contemner has acted bona fide or mala fide or with malice–There seems to be a marked distinction between a prepared speech and a press talk; inasmuch as in the former a person can prepare his speech after serious deliberations and taking into consideration pros and cons of matters; whereas in the latter case, be has to face many unexpected questions which he may have no prior idea–It is a matter of common knowledge that during press talks press reporters skillfully extract statements which person concerned might have no intention to make–Above distinction is important for purpose of deciding question, whether alleged contemner has acted bona fide or mala fide or with malice. Per : Ajmal Mian, C.J. Agreeing (FB) all 7 Judges) PLJ 1999 SC 2 73
  3. Apology–Concept–An `apology’ with regard to objectionable disparaging remarks, or indecent publication, or contemptuous expression of derogatory speech by itself does not provide adequate remedy–No doubt in modern developing trends, the approach of Court is considerably liberal, when person facing contempt proceedings surrenders himself to jurisdiction o Court seeking mercy and expressing real, genuine heartfelt repentances reassuring abstinence from repetition of similar conduct- Therefore, apology through does not by itself purge wrong committed by contemner, yet reduces is gravity and operates as extenuating circumstance for taking a lenient and favourable view–Apology, therefore, to some extent may be reparation on part of offender displaying bona fide intention of withdrawing from expressions made in a momentary heat or in peculiar situation, without actually desiring to do so; brat it cannot overtake and counteract mischief already committed by him through expression or publication of such material–State of tendering apology is always important and material–Normally, after vehemently contesting proceedings and trying to justify action at trial end when accusations prima facie appear to have been established, submission of `apology’ would not-be real outpouring of remorse about impropriety already committed- Therefore, offering apology by way of last desperate action, when all pleas appear to be failing would not be worthy of consideration; and may be merely apology for an apology–Invariably surrender to jurisdiction of Court praying for excusing fault is relatable to time and should prominently reflect keen anxiety of contemner for making genuine endeavour to dilute gravity and with greatest humility seeking condonation of accusations made against him–If apology si tendered, it would not automatically purge contemner form contempt and may not necessarily be accepted unless Court from surrounding circumstances is satisfied about his bona fides–Acceptance or rejection of apology, therefore, depends upon volume and nature of contempt allegedly committed—However prepondered view revolves around bona fides of contemner and satisfaction of Court about genuineness of apology being tendered. Some of fundamentals for accepting apology can be enumerated.
  4. Contempt of Court- —-Concept–Proceedings relating to contempt–Object–Nature of jurisdiction of Court in contempt of Court cases–Word “contempt”–Connotation. Per : Munawar Ahmad Mirza, J. PLJ 1999 SC 2 73 Reference was given here to Indian, English, Australian, Newzealand, Canadian, U.S.A., Pakistan and European Human Rights Case-Law and ratio decidendi cited their main points.
  5. Disobedience of Order of High Court—Proceedings for contempt of court–Prayer for–Rejection of–Challenge to–Plenary jurisdiction to interpret judgment of High Court rested with learned Judges of Division Bench who had occasion to decide it–Learned Judges have found that ratio of their judgment clearly was that both or S (petitioner) and Dr- H were equally eligible for promotion to the Post of Assistant Professor orthopaedic and, therefore, it was open to competent authority to make selection of any one of them or any other eligible doctor for promotion to post according to law, which reason does not seem to be mis-placed or unfounded–Petition dismissed- PLJ 1997 SC 1725
  6. Origin and legislative history of law of contempt in Indo-Pak with interpretation and analysis of relevant provisions–See details. Per : Ajmal Mian, C.J. Agreeing (FB) all 7 Judges) PLJ 1999 SC 2 73
  7. Powers of Court to be used sparingly and only in serious cases—Court should not be either unduly touchy or over-tstute in discovering new varieties of contempt for “its usefulness depends on wisdom and restraint with which it is exercised”. Per : Ajmal Mian, C.J. Agreeing (FB) all 7 Judges) PLJ 1999 SC 2 73
  8. Proceedings–Nature–Rule of criminal jurisprudence that if two view on same evidence are plausibly possible, one favouring person standing trial should be preferred over one against him, cannot be pressed into service in contempt proceedings and same are sui generis in nature partaking of some elements of both civil criminal proceedings. Per : Ajmal Mian, C.J. Agreeing (FB) all 7 Judges) PLJ 1999 SC 2 73 PLD 1962 SC 457 quoted.
  9. Proceedings–Nature–Rule of criminal jurisprudence that if two view on same evidence are plausibly possible, one favouring person staning trial should be preferred over one against him, cannot be pressed into service in contempt proceedings and same are sui generis in nature partaking of some elements of both civil criminal proceedings. Per : Ajmal Mian, C.J. Agreeing (FB) all 7 Judges) PLJ 1999 SC 2 73
  10. Report in newspaper–Whether contempt of court has been committed–Question of–In stating that he had no legal back ground so as to understand functioning of Judges of Superior Courts, respondent perhaps was right because instead of there being any mens rea to malign court, it appears that he was not clear as to what position he should have taken when answering contempt notice–Held: It is deemed fit and proper not to proceed further and to ,drop case against respondent–Contempt notice discharged. PLJ 1992 SC 76
  11. Smoking outside door of Court–Contempt of Court–Conviction for–Challenge to–Amended section 476 of Cr.P.C. empowered Court to take cognizance of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) or (c) of Cr.P.C. if same has been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in any civil Revenue or Criminal Court and pass sentence under sub-section (2) thereof–Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 Cr.P.C. includes section 228 PPC and consequently, Additional Sessions Judge was competent to take cognizance of such offence–There should be some relationship between offence alleged to have been committed and proceedings–It appears that smoking of a cigarette outside court room in corridor, had no nexus with a proceeding of a bail application–Held: There was no legal justification for taking cognizance against appellant under Section 476 Cr.P.C. PLJ 1991 Cr.C. (Karachi) 208
  12. Status quo order–Grant of–Non-extension of–Whether there was any violation of status quo order–Question of–Order for maintenance of status quo was only uptil 24.11.1979 and it was not extended thereafter–If court wanted to extend interim order, a conscious order explicitly stating so, would have been passed by it–Held: Interim order passed for a limited period which was not extended, stood vacated by efflux of time and there was no violation of any order passed by High Court–Contempt notice discharged. PLJ 1992 Cr.C.(Lahore) 90 85 CLC 1995 rel.
  13. Supreme Court–Contempt of–Proceedings for–What sentence be awarded to contemner–Question of–Attorney General has very candidly and fairly stated that although respondent is guilty of contempt, but he is entitled to be dealt with leninetly in view of several mitigating circumstances in case–It is contended that Mr. Waseem Sajjad, Chairman of Senate, through whom respondent claimed to have sent message to court, has denied to have carried any message on behalf of respondent–It is further argued that respondent has not shown any contumacy in his actions and has rather expressed his remorse for same–Held: Keeping in view facts and circumstances of case, a severe reprimand to respondent will meet ends of justice. (Per Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, J.) PLJ 1994 SC 293
  14. Supreme Court–Contempt of–Proceedings for–When respondent filed statement dated 12.2.1993 in court and when taking note thereof, other Bench of Supreme Court made remarks which have rightly been taken as severe admonition and reprimand–Purpose and object of law to retrieve honour and dignity of court, stood satisfied–Held: Once a reprimand having been administered by other Bench, repeating it for second time, in circumstances of present case, is not necessary. (Per Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ). PLJ 1994 SC 293
  15. Supreme Court–Contempt of–Proceedings for–Whether it is necessary to prepare written charge, to frame issues or to hold regular trial or examination–Question of–It is an accepted legal proposition that a Judge who summarily stops any attempt to interfere with course of justice, actually performs his constitutional and public duty–Duty of a Judge to punish for court’s contempt, means to prevent and stiffle any damage to public confidence in an important organ of State and not protection of individual Judges–No personal interest is, therefore, involved–Held: It is not necessary that there be a written charge, framing of issues, or to hold regular trial or examination. (Per Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ). PLJ 1994 SC 293
  16. Supreme Court–Contempt of–Proceedings for–Written statement amounting to contempt of court, if presented before court, is analogous to a contempt committed in presence and face of court–There is no difference between words spoken or acts done in face of court or statement submitted to it in writing, in case of direct contempt–Similar is case of scandalising by a published, printed or written material–Held: So was case when statement of respondent dated 12.2.1993 was presented in court. (Per Muhammad Afzal Zullah, CJ). PLJ 1994 SC 293
  17. Tenant–Ejectment of–Order of High Court for refund of amount deposited by tenant–Violation of–Whether contempt was committed–Question of–It is a matter of serious concern that in F.RA. there is only one respondent who is landlady, but in application, husband of landlady and Rent Controller have also been cited not as alleged contemners but as two other respondents–It could occasion an inadvertant notice of contempt to a judicial officer who may have acted merely in performance of his duties–Matter of refund was agitated before Controller in execution proceedings in ordinary course of law–There were counter cases as to dues between parties–Held: Finding may be right or wrong but certainly it was not in disregard of orders of High Court- ‘ Application dismissed. PLJ 1994 Karachi 235
  18. Case showing over enthusiasm and lack of sense of responsibility-judicial proceedings, pubblication of Press to wait tili an order is sigued by Judge-Respondents. not admitted to hail but news flashed in daily Press that such respondents had been admitted to interim bail-No., action. taken as it was not a fit case to proceed with expect a show of unnecessary haste on the part of Press-Art. 204, Constitution of Pakistan (1973).P L J 1981 Cr. C. (Lahore) 44
  19. Contemptuous paragraph in plaint–Notice of Contempt of Court—Issuance of–Application of contemner to summon defence witnesses including Presiding Judge of High Court, has been made only to delay, defeat and, protract proceedings and publicise contempt–Conduct of contemner throughout contempt proceedings was reprehensible–Instead of submitting himself to mercy of court, contemner Advocate took up an arrogant and disrespectful attitude from very beginning–Paragraph 8. of plaint was drafted by contemner Dr. Hameed Ahmad Ayyaz, Advocate and Contemner Ziauddin has not disassociated himself from drafting of this para. nor has he submitted an apology–Held: Contemners’ conduct throughout was such that they deserve no sympathy from court–Contemners convicted. PLJ 1992 Cr.C (Karachi) 76
  20. Appellant was not cross-examined on most of points–Effect–This plea of Appellant itself amounts to contempt and Advocate General did well not to pollute or sully his hands by entering in an question/answer dialogue. PLJ 2002 Cr.C. (Lahore) 1522
  21. Contempt of Court- —-Contempt of Court is a. weapon which is to be used sparingly and always with reference to administration of justice where ex-facie some contempt of Court has been committed. PLJ 2000 Karachi 284
  22. Contempt of Court–Acquital by a Supreme Court Bench–Prayer for initiating de nova proceedings in respect of acts of rowdyism in the Supreme Court Building Islamabad on 28.11.1997–Principles laid down in Ghulam Sikandar v. Mamaraz Khan (PLJ 1985 SC 74), for interference with an order of acquittal in light of well-known principles of reappraisement of evidence are not attracted in this cause as it does not arise out of acquittal of accused under ordinary Criminal trial, which is based on initial presumption that till found guilty, accused is innocent and that benefit of every reasonable doubt should be extended to accused–In contempt matters, onus is on contemner himself to prove his innocence–Court would not have interfered with acquittal merely because on reappraisal of evidence a different view from that of learned three-member Bench acquitting accused, could reasonably be possible–However, contempt matters stand on a different footing, in that in such matters while exercising suo motu review jurisdiction Supreme Court is competent. to assess gravity of offence committed by an accused/ contemner and if it is satisfied that contempt of Court has in fact been committed, it can proceed to punish contemner in accordance with law. PLJ 2000 SC 1946
  23. Contempt of Court–Acquittal by a Supreme Court Bench–Prayer for initiating de novo proceedings in respect of acts of rowdyism in the Supreme Court Building Islamabad on 28.11.1997–Reliance on video cassettes could not be placed, inasmuch as, perusal of statement of witness clearly showed that Mr. Tanvir an employee was on duty in Control Room in Supreme Court on 28.11.1997, but he had not been produced before Bench which conducted trial and, therefore, veracity of these cassettes had become doubtful for further reason that these cassettes do not contain any mention of events dated 28.11.1997 and that at least for some time these cassettes remained neither in custody of Mr. Zakaullah nor Mr. M.A. Farooqui PWs, therefore, possibility of tampering with them could not be ruled out–It may be observed that tampering with video cassettes is not established on record-in any event, respondents have admitted their presence on eventful day–Viewed in this context, above objection is not sustainable– PLJ 2000 SC 1946
  24. Contempt of Court–Acquittal by a Supreme Court–Prayer for initiating de novo proceedings in respect of acts of rowdyism in the Supreme Court Building Islamabad on 28.11.1997–Alleged contemners did not contain themselves within limits of fair or even an outspoken comment but resorted to physical violence by breaking open outer-gate of Supreme Court and making forced entry into premises up to Court Room No. 1.–Fact that acts of rowdyism were preplanned also adds to their gravity as attack launched against Apex Court of Pakistan has seriously shaken confidence of general public in authority of Court–In this view of matter, acts of rowdyism committed by respondents (contemners) herein are liable to punishment in order to deter such ambitious persons who have their own axes to grind in such events–It is also in public interest that administration of justice must be kept free from all extraneous influences so that public confidence in independence and impartiality of Courts is not impaired and litigants are not deterred, in any manner, from seeking enforcement of their legal rights through Courts of justice–It is therefore, imperative that a balance should be struck between these competing demands of public interest and public policy–Nevertheless, while doing so, it seems to Court that this balance is only to be adequately ensured by allowing fair comment made in good faith and in public interest on working of Courts or any of their final decisions after expiry of period of limitation for appeal, if any, and not by allowing physical attacks on Courts, thereby jeopardizing life of a Judge or putting dignity and authority of Court at stake. PLJ 2000 SC 1946
  25. Contempt of Court–Acquittal by a Supreme Court Bench–Prayer for initiating de. novo proceedings in respect of acts of rowdyism in the Supreme court Building Islamabad on 28.11.1997–Evidence based on video cassettee–Status–Where case of a contemner depends wholly or substantially on his identification then Courts should exercise caution while relying on identification simpliciter without supporting evidence–When a visual identification is made after due observation of video cassettes by Court in presence of accused coupled with oral evidence to support it, accused though may not be, depending upon circumstances of each case, convicted on such evidence but if visual evidence is supported by oral evidence or circumstances which Court thinks were supportive of identification, Court can take same into consideration-4n present case, though direct evidence brought on record does not conclusively prove that respondents were actively taking part in event but admittedly they were present at scene of occurrence–In this situation, video cassettes recorded through Closed Circuit Cameras installed in Supreme Court premises showing presence of respondents in Supreme Court premises do furnish a corroborative piece of evidence against them, which can be relied upon in peculiar circumstances of case–In case of Collector of Customs v. Saeed-ur-Rehman (PLD 1989 SC 249), wherein video cassettee being only conclusive evidence viz. ex facie proof of guilt of civil servant was considered to be sufficient evidence for conviction under relevant law–Reference can also be. made to following case law relating to admissibility of video-films/cassettes in evidence: R. v. Turnbull ((1976) 3 All ER 549) and R v. Cook ((1987) 1 All ER 1049)–It is a ‘ matter of common knowledge that unfortunately in our society at times, even eye-witnesses of an occurrence hesitate to appear as witnesses either because of fear of involvement in prosecution controversy during investigation stage and/or before Court or due to fact that they are influenced, harassed or intimidated by opposite party–This being so, Court should be dynamic and not static while appraising circumstantial evidence brought on record in such cases–While appraising such evidence, if conscience of Court, on material placed before it, is satisfied that factually person charged with contempt has committed same, it should record conviction ignoring technicalities of procedure provided contemners have been given a fair trial for defending themselves pursuant to charges levelled against them–In cases where there is no direct evidence to show in what manner offence was committed, Courts must examine probabilities in light of indirect evidence or, circumstantial evidence,’ which once found to have been established, may well furnish a better basis for decision than any other Kind of evidence. PLJ 2000 SC 1946
  26. Contempt of Court–Object of–Object and purpose of proceedings for contempt is not vindication of character or conduct of a Judge but to protect Court from attack and to maintain in it confidence of people in general and litigant public in particular–True ground for initiating such proceedings is public interest–Jurisdiction to punish for contempt is considered to be a special jurisdiction, which is inherent in all Courts as an essential concomitant of their power to preserve order in judicial proceedings and to maintain authority of law–Shariat also accords exalted position to a Court to ensure supremacy of law, in that majesty of law cannot be maintained without keeping discipline and decorum of Courts. PLJ 2000 SC 1946
  27. Matter of contempt of a Court is essentially between Court and contemner/s, therefore, it is up to Court whose contempt has been committed to take any action against a contemner or accept apology on his behalf and even an appellate Court cannot direct such Court to proceed with contempt or to reject apology–It may also be clarified that where a third party (a stranger) brings to notice of Court that contempt of that Court has been committed, Court can take notice on his complaint/ application–However, entertainment of such application/ complaint does not ipso facto give that person right to prosecute contemners on behalf of Court as had been claimed by petitioner in present proceedings–Once Court has assumed jurisdiction in such a matter, Court is not bound to hear person moving Court– PLJ 2000 SC 1946
  28. Prayer for initiating de novo proceedings in respect of acts of rowdyism in the Supreme Court Building Islamabad on 28.11.1997–Tendering of unconditional apology on behalf of respondents (contemners) at a belated stage–Staute–Act of tendering unconditional apology is always important and material, inasmuch as, an apology though does not by itself, purge wrong committed by contemner yet it reduces gravity of offence and operates as a mitigating circumstance–However, it has in most of cases where contempt is committed, contemners proceed with vehemently contesting proceedings and trying to justify action–Towards end, when feel that accusations prima facie appear to have been established, they tender apology in alternative–Such an attitude on part of contemners, being without expression of remorse about impropriety of act already committed by them, would not- be worthy of consideration—In by oral evidence or circumstances which Court thinks were supportive of identification, Court can take same into consideration-4n present case, though direct evidence brought on record does not conclusively prove that respondents were actively taking part in event but admittedly they were present at scene of occurrence–In this situation, video cassettes recorded through Closed Circuit Cameras installed in Supreme Court premises showing presence of respondents in Supreme Court premises do furnish a corroborative piece of evidence against them, which can be relied upon in peculiar circumstances of case–In case of Collector of Customs v. Saeed-ur-Rehman (PLD 1989 SC 249), wherein video cassettee being only conclusive evidence viz. ex facie proof of guilt of civil servant was considered to be sufficient evidence for conviction under relevant law–Reference can also be. made to following case law relating to admissibility of video-films/cassettes in evidence: R. v. Turnbull ((1976) 3 All ER 549) and R v. Cook ((1987) 1 All ER 1049)–It is a ‘ matter of common knowledge that unfortunately in our society at times, even eye-witnesses of an occurrence hesitate to appear as witnesses either because of fear of involvement in prosecution controversy during investigation stage and/or before Court or due to fact that they are influenced, harassed or intimidated by opposite party–This being so, Court should be dynamic and not static while appraising circumstantial evidence brought on record in such cases–While appraising such evidence, if conscience of Court, on material placed before it, is satisfied that factually person charged with contempt has committed same, it should record conviction ignoring technicalities of procedure provided contemners have been given a fair trial for defending themselves pursuant to charges levelled against them–In cases where there is no direct evidence to show in what manner offence was committed, Courts must examine probabilities in light of indirect evidence or, circumstantial evidence,’ which once found to have been established, may well furnish a better basis for decision than any other Kind of evidence. PLJ 2000 SC 1946
  29. Prayer for initiating de novo proceedings in respect of acts of rowdyism in the Supreme Court Building Islamabad on 28.11.1997–Tendering of unconditional apology on behalf of respondents (contemners) at a belated stage–Staute–Act of tendering unconditional apology is always important and material, inasmuch as, an apology though does not by itself, purge wrong committed by contemner yet it reduces gravity of offence and operates as a mitigating circumstance–However, it has in most of cases where contempt is committed, contemners proceed with vehemently contesting proceedings and trying to justify action–Towards end, when feel that accusations prima facie appear to have been established, they tender apology in alternative–Such an attitude on part of contemners, being without expression of remorse about impropriety of act already committed by them, would not- be worthy of consideration—In cases where accused/contemners purge themselves by ,tendering unconditional apology without making any attempt at justification of their blameworthy conduct and/or contesting matter on factual side, grace lies in forgiving rather than convicting/punishing them, in that a Court ought never to be vindictive and should always take due notice of sincere apologies–But a brief survey of case law shows that gracious attitude of Courts in dealing with contempt cases by accepting apology from contemners has been constructed as a sort of weakness or inability of Courts to deal effectively with contemners–A general feeling has developed in minds of people that after grossly scandalizing and slandering a Court or a Judge, contemner can get away with it conveniently by tendering unconditional apology–Such a tendency not only erodes public confidence in judicial process but also impinges upon dignity of judiciary besides affecting independence of Judges–No doubt, unconditional apology by a contemner is not a defence in a contempt case rather it is an admission on his part and does not absolve him from consequences of contemptuous act–Respondents (contemners) instead of tendering unconditional apology at very outset, contested case on factual side with great vehemence during trial–However, on commencement of present proceedings, they have tendered unconditional apology in alternative, meaning thereby that they stick to their earlier stand and manifestation of remorse and repentance is only to wriggle out of present proceedings–Clearly, surrender to jurisdiction of Court and praying for excusing guilt is relatable to time and should prominently reflect keen anxiety of contemner for making genuine endeavour at earliest to dilute gravity of act which amounted to contempt and that too with greatest humility seeking condonation of accusations made against him, which is not case in present proceedings–Accordingly, respondents were not sincere in tendering apologies in that learned counsel reiterated that unqualified apologies tendered by their clients are in alternative and without prejudice to submissions made by them or on their behalf on merits–Such apologies do not qualify for acceptance in light of well settled principles laid down by Superior Courts in this behalf i.e–(a) apology must be offered at earliest stage, of contempt proceedings and may not be postponed till fag-end of proceedings; (b) apology must be unconditional, unreserved and unqualified; (c) apology should not only appear but must also satisfactorily represent sincere and genuine remorse and should not be half-hearted or mere formality; and (d) contemner should not endeavour to justify his conduct–Here, respondents had specifically disputed charges levelled against them, had unequivocally pleaded their innocence and had endeavoured to justify their conduct even at fag-end of proceedings–Therefore, their apologies are not accepted. PLJ 2000 SC 1946
  30. See Para 30 to 34 of the Judgement PLJ 2000 SC 1946 for important references regrading contempt proceedings.  Contempt of Court- —-Submission of learned council was that since according to charge, criticism of Chief Justice of Pakistan amounted to scandalisation of Chief Justice, he•should not hear case–Held: There was no personal element involved and criticism complained of was of institution of Supreme Court of Pakistan Chief Justice of Pakistan was an integral part of such institution as such criticism was aimed at institution as a whole. PLJ 1998 SC 1030

ajax loader

This site is protected by WP-CopyRightPro
Translate »
Copy Protected by Chetan's WP-Copyprotect.