1. ' GHULAM RABBANI, J.---Appellant has called in question the judgment (order) dated 24-3-2005 passed by learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No,III, Karachi whereby the Appellant having been found guilty under section 476(2)(a), Cr.P.C. Has been convicted and sentenced to suffer S.-I. For one month and to pay a fine of Rs,10,000 in default of payment thereof to suffer further S.-I. For one week.
2. ' Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that that Appellant lodged F.I.R. No,51 of 2004 with Police Station Manghopir which was registered under section 343, P.P.C. According to the information the appellant, one Abdul Wadood, his brother, was abducted on 28-6-2004 at about 5-00 p.m. By one Shamsher Khan. The above information was investigated and it was found that the same was falsely got registered with the police being Crime No,51 of 2004 and such report was placed before learned Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court No,III, Karachi who approved the same vide Order dated 30-8- 2004. Simultaneously, learned Judge issued notice to the Appellant to show-cause and on the reply furnished thereto, learned Judge of trial Court vide his order dated 6-12-2004 came to the conclusion that appellant had committed offence for which proceedings were initiated against him. Later, a charge was framed on 22-2-2005 against appellant under sections 193, 195, 228 and 476, Cr.P.C. Read with section 37 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 and then after recording evidence of two witnesses namely, Tasawar Ameer, Inspector and Syed Akhtar Ali Reader of the Court and also recording the statement of appellant under section 342(1), Cr.P.C. And the evidence of D.Ws., convicted and sentenced the Appellant under the judgment impugned herein.
3. ' The contentions of Mr. Muhammad Ikram Siddique, learned counsel for the appellant are that learned Judge, trial Court had no powers to issue notice to appellant and then frame the charge, record evidence as above and convict and sentence appellant on the allegations that a false F.I.R.
4. Was got registered by him. Mr. Siddiqui urged that in case the appellant was guilty to have lodged a false F.I.R., then he could have been alleged to have committed offence falling under section 182, P.P.C. Which should have been taken cognizance of and tried within terms of section 195(1)(a), Cr.P.C. Mr. Siddiqui argued that in that case within terms of said provisions of the law, cognizance should have been taken of the alleged offence on a complaint in writing by the Agency which was put into motion for registration of false report. Mr. Siddiqui contends that, therefore, the judgment impugned herein suffers from lack of jurisdiction and the same being coram non judice is liable to be set aside; although, according to him, appellant had already served out the sentence and stood released from the jail.
5. ' Mr. Habib Ahmad, learned A.A.-G. Has acquiesced in whatever has been submitted by Mr. Muhammad Ikram Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant in his submissions, as above. In addition to above, Mr. Habib Ahmed states that the impugned judgment reflects that appellant was convicted under section 476(2)(a), Cr.P.C. Which was not a punitive provision of the law and no conviction or sentence could have been awarded within terms thereof. He very candidly stated that the impugned judgment merits reversal and be set aside to wash off the scar on the character of appellant.
6. ' We have given due attention to the arguments of both the learned counsel and with their assistance we have gone through the material made available before us. We have also gone through the relevant provisions of law.
7. First of all, it may be stated that the contention of Mr. Habib Ahmed is not incorrect that the provisions of section 476(2)(a), Cr.P.C. Are not punitive and no conviction and sentence could be maintained under the said provisions of law. Admittedly, learned trial Court while passing the impugned judgment has convicted and sentenced appellant under the above provisions of Cr.P.C.
8. Which could not have been done legally. Be that as it may, in case learned Judge of the trial Court was of the opinion that appellant was guilty for having falsely lodged report with the police, the only penal action that could have been taken against him was that a complaint should have been filed under section 182, Cr.P.C. And then the procedure as provided under section 195(1)(a), Cr.P.C., could alone have been adopted to proceed further thereon. In this behalf the contentions of Mr. Siddiqui are not incorrect. Mr. Habib Ahmed, learned A.A.-G. Has supported the pleas taken by Mr. Muhammad Ikram Siddiqui which, in our estimation, seem to be proper and correct.
9. ' We have gone through the case-law cited by learned trial Court in its judgment i.e, cases reported in (1992 SCM R 1229) and (PLD 2003 SC 19). With all due respect, it may be stated that the case-law referred to by the learned Judge of the trial Court has no application to the case of the appellant.
10. We are, therefore, clearly of the view that the impugned judgment is illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment.