This is a petition under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. By Ch. Atta. Muhammad and two others, petitioners, for quashment of criminal proceedings pending against them under section 193/471, P. P. C. In the Court of a Magistrate at Vehari.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16-1-1971, Muhammad Akhtar, respondent No. 2, filed an application under section 40 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, before the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Vehari (hereinafter referred to as "the Collector, Vehari") for the eviction of Ch. Atta Muhammad, Ch. Sanaullah and Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, petitioners Nos. 1 to 3, from a portion of the land bearing Khasra No. 67/28 in Chak No. 557/E.B., Tehsil Vehari (then District Multan). 'During the course of the said proceedings, petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 on 4-2-1971 made an application under section 163 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, before the Collector, Vehari, for review of Mutation No. 159 dated 30-7-1970 effected by the Tehsildar, Vehari, in favour of respondent No. 2. This mutation showed hat the lease made by the predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 2 in favour of the petitioner No. 2 stood redeemed. With the said application for review, the petitioners lodged a certified copy of Mutation No. 67 dated 11-10-1961 to prove that petitioner No. 2 could not alone agreed to the redemption of land, as petitioners Nos. 1 and 3 had become co-sharers in the lease by the said Mutation No. 67 dated 11-10-1961. On 5-2-1971, the learned Collector, Vehari, dismissed respondent No. 2's application filed against the petitioners under section 40 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (Annexure `B' in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 485/Q-73). By the said order, the learned Collector, Vehari, also dismissed the petitioners' application for the review of Mutation No. 159 dated 30-7-1970 (wrongly referred to by him in his order as Mutation No. 67). In the meantime, on 4-2-1971 respondent No. 2 had filed an application (Annexure `D' in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 485/Q-73) before the Collector, Vehari, alleging that the petitioners had, in their review petition filed under section 163 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, lodged a forged copy of Mutation No. 67 dated 11-10-1961 and that criminal proceedings against them should be taken under section 193/477, P. P. C. The learned Collector, Vehari, after calling for and inspecting the original mutation, lodged a complaint on 5-10-1972, against the petitioners under section 193/471, P.P.C. Before a Magistrate at Vehari. The petitioners were, accordingly, summoned by the said Magistrate to face their trial under section 193/471, P. P. C.
Being aggrieved by initiation of criminal proceedings against them, the petitioners preferred a petition for quashment in the High Court, which is now before me for disposal:
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the proceedings before the Collector, Vehari, in the review petition filed by the petitioners before the said Officer, were revenue proceedings simpliciter and not judicial proceedings or proceedings before a Court. It was submitted that under clause (ii) of the proviso to subsection (2) of section 163 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, the Collector, Vehari, was not called to review the mutation himself, but was only required to give his sanction to enable the Tehsildar, Vehari, the successor of the Tehsildar who had passed the earlier mutation dated 11-10-1961, to do so. Since the Collector only had to grant or refuse sanction, it was submitted that he merely performed an administrative function as a Revenue Officer and not a judicial function as a Court. In these circumstances, it was submitted that no case was made out under section 193, P. P. C., as no document was fabricated for use in the revenue proceedings, which were administrative and not judicial, and no case was made out under section 471, P. P. C., as the petitioners had not forged the certified copy of the Mutation No. 67 dated 11-10-1961 but had only submitted the certified copy obtained from the patwari concerned. It was further contended that since the Collector, Vehari, for the purposes of granting sanction for review, was not a revenue Court, the said officer was neither competent under section 476, Cr. P. C.
To take cognizance of offences under section 193/471, P. P. C. Committed before him and to try the same himself in accordance with the procedure prescribed for summary trials in Chapter XXII nor was he competent under section 476-A, Cr. P. C. To forward such a case for trial to a Magistrate having jurisdiction to do so. It was further submitted that section 476 or 476-A, Cr. P. C. Only came into play, if offences under section 193/471, P. P. C. Were committed in or in relation to proceedings before any "civil, revenue or criminal Court", which was not the case in instance, as the Collector, Vehari, did not act as a revenue Court. Lastly, it was submitted that before filing a complaint against the petitioners before a Magistrate, the learned Collector, Vehari, did not hold any inquiry or issue any show--cause notice to the petitioners calling upon them to explain the respondent's wild allegations against them. In these circumstances, it was submitted that the private complaint instituted against the petitioners was void ab initio and deserved to be quashed.
4. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2, who strongly opposed the petition, submitted that the application dated 4-2-1971 filed by the petitioners under section 163 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, was filed in the proceedings initiated by respondent No. 2 under section 40 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, for eviction of the petitioners and that since the proceedings under the Tenancy Act before the Collector, Vehari, were judicial proceedings and the Collector, Vehari, acted as a revenue Court under section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, the offences under section 193/471, P. P. C. Were committed by the petitioners in or in relation to proceedings before a revenue Court within the meaning of section 476, Cr. P. C. It was, therefore, contended that the 8 complaint filed by the Collector, Vehari, on 5-10-1972 against the petitioners under section 193/471, P. P. C. Before a Magistrate at Vehari was competent under section 476-A, Cr. P. C. And the Magistrate at Vehari was competent to take cognizance of the same under section 195(1) (b) and
(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code. It was further submitted that no notice to the petitioners was necessary during the stage that the Collector, Vehari, conducted a preliminary inquiry to see if a case against the petitioners was made out under section 193/471, P. P. C. In the said connection Dr. Nazar Muhammad v. Harnam Singh and another (AIR 1938 Lah. 641), was cited. It was further submitted that since the trial had started, the question whether a preliminary inquiry was held or not by the Collector, Vehari, before he decided to lodge the complaint against the petitioners, was not relevant, as the omission only amounted to an irregularity and did not effect the action taken by the said Court under section 476-A, Cr. P. C. In the said connection, Zafar Niazi v. Riaz-ud-Din (PLD 1958 Lah, 738) and Muhammad Yaqoob v. The State (PLD 1964 Lah. 382), were referred to. In the light of these cumulative circumstances, it was urged that the petition for quashment was misconceived and that the same should be dismissed.
5. The learned Advocate-General, Punjab, who appeared for the State and opposed the petition, submitted that in view of the definition of the words "revenue Court" and "revenue officer", as contained in subsections (22) and (23) of section 4 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, all proceedings conducted under section 163 of the said Act were proceedings conducted by a Revenue Officer and not by a revenue Court, but in view of section 27 of the same Act, the said proceedings by legal fiction became judicial proceedings .For the limited purpose of deciding whether offences under sections 193, 219 and 228 of the Penal Code had been committed or not before him and in respect thereof the Revenue Officer conducting the said proceedings was to be deemed to be a revenue Court. It was, therefore submitted that the petition for quashment was misconceived and should be dismissed.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to this case. It cannot be doubted that the proceedings arising out of the application filed by Muhammad Akhtar, respondent No. 2, under section 40 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, before the Collector, Vehari, for the eviction of petitioners Nos. 1 to 3 are entirely separate proceedings from that arising out of the application filed by Ch. Atta Muhammad, Ch. Sana Ullah and Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, petitioners Nos. 1 to 3, under section 163 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, before the Collector, Vehari, for review of Mutation No. 159, dated 30-7-1970. It is true that the latter application was made in proceedings which were pending relating to the former, but this by itself does not mean that since the former proceedings relating to eviction were before a Revenue Court, in view of section 77 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, the proceedings relating to the review petition filed under section 163 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, automatically became judicial proceedings before a revenue Court. The review proceedings were totally independent of the eviction proceedings and had to be treated and dealt with as such.
7. The main question that calls for determination is whether the proceedings in the review petition filed by the petitioners before the Collector were proceedings before a revenue Court or a Revenue Officer. The review, petition, to the extent to which it was before the Collector, was for sanction only and was, therefore, basically an administrative proceeding. An order granting or refusing sanction is riot as appealable order. "See subsection (4) of section 163 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967). Even otherwise, in view of the definition of "revenue Court" and "Revenue Officer" as given in subsections (22) and (23) of section 4 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, it appears that only Courts, constituted as such, under the law relating to tenancy as may be in force' from time to time can be treated as revenue Courts, whereas all officers having authority under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, and performing their functions thereunder, only discharge their functions as revenue officers and not as revenue Courts. The revenue Courts presently constituted as such in the Punjab under the existing law relating to tenancy appear to be those under the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. In these circumstances, almost all proceedings under the Wes Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, whether they be administrative, like mutation or those to obtain sanction for review,- or judicial or quasi judicial, like some under Chapter XIII, would be proceedings before a Revenue Officer and not a revenue Court. A perusal of the application made by the petitioners under section 163 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, shows that it not only called for the sanction of the Collector, Vehari, to permit the Tehsildar below to review the mutation but also contained the grounds for review to enable the said Tehsildar to review the previous Mutation No. 159 dated 30-7-1970. It is obvious that without the grounds for review being before the learned Collector, Vehari, the petitioners would not have been able to make out a case for sanction. Be that as it may, no sooner a forged copy of some document or a document containing some false statement was filed by the petitioners in proceedings for review before the Collector or the review petition itself contained false averments, for the limited purposes of deciding whether the said petitioners had committed an offence under section 193, 219 or 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code, the said proceedings for obtaining sanction for review under section 163 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967; became, by legal fiction created by section 27 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, judicial proceedings and the learned Collector conducting the same became a revenue Court for the purposes thereof. The words "every inquiry" in subsection (1) of section 27 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, are not restricted to executive or administrative inquiries under the said Act. They include proceedings partaking of the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings also; such as those contemplated under Chapter XIII of the said Act, even though the said proceedings may be conducted by officers 'having authority under the Act to discharge their functions as Revenue Officers instead of as revenue Courts. The word "inquiry" in section 27 of the said Act is not used in any limited sense, but in a broad and general sense as indicating the action of seeking information or facts or truth concerning something, or investigating or examining certain facts to arrive at the truth. It cannot be denied that the petitioners with their said application under section 163 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, lodged a copy of Part Patwari of Mutation No. 67 dated 11-10-1961 purporting to be certified by the Patwari of the Halqa concerned, which was found by the learned Collector, Vehari, on an inquiry conducted by him, to be totally different from the Part Sarkar. The Collector, Vehari, therefore, filed a complaint before the Magistrate at Vehari against the petitioners under section 193/471, P. P. C. Even assuming, though not admitting, for the purposes of this petition, that the proceedings before the Collector under section 163 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, were not proceedings before a Revenue Court, then too the complaint filed by the Collector, Vehari, would have been competent and the Magistrate would have been within jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same under clause (a) of subsection (1) of section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The only difference in such a case would not have been attracted and no offence would appear to have been made out under section 193, P. P. C.
8. Regarding the other objections, as held in Dr. Nazar Muhammad v. Hernam Singh and another, no notice of an inquiry under section 476, Cr. P. C. Is necessary to the accused in such cases.
Further, since the trial has started, the question whether any preliminary inquiry was held or not by the Collector, Vehari, before be lodged the complaint is now no longer relevant as the omission would only amount to an irregularity. If any authority is required for this view, M. A. Gurmani v. Z. A.
Suleri (PLD 1958 Lah. 747) may be cited with advantage. However, it cannot be denied that the Collector, Vehari, did hold a summary inquiry to find out whether the allegation against the petitioners under section 193/471,. P. P. C. Were correct and in that inquiry he summoned the Patwari with the revenue records and examined the same and then filed the Complaint against the petitioners. Under rule 4 of the West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968, all written applications or statements filed by a party in proceedings before a Revenue Officer have to be drawn up and verified in the manner provided by the Civil Procedure Code for written statements in suits. In para. 2 of the review petition, the petitioners stated that Fateh Din deceased, the father of Muhammad Akhtar, respondent No. 2, learned 2/3rd of the disputed land to Atta Muhammad and Muhammad Iqbal, petitioners Nos. 1 and 3, for Rs. 1,000 and supported the review petition with a copy of the Part Patwar of Mutation No. 67 dated 11-10-1961 whereas the Part Sarkar actually showed that Sanaullah, petitioner No.: 2, had sub-leased 2/3 of the disputed land to his brothers Atta Muhammad and Muhammad lqbal, petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, for a consideration of Rs. 1,000. Thus, by making the said statement in their review petition and supporting in with the Part Patwar of the said mutation, instead of the Part Sarkar, the petitioners attempted to obtain an order from the Court, which otherwise it would not pass. Being bound by law to make a declaration of truth, by verification of their review petition, and having made a statement which was misleading or which they knew or believed to be false or did not believe to be true, the petitioners prima facie attempted to give false evidence, within the meaning of section 191, P. P. C., and thus were prima facie liable under section 193, P. P. C: In these circumstances, the complaint of the Collector is based on proper judicial grounds. The present petition for quashment is misconceived and even otherwise there are no good grounds for quashment.
9. For the foregoing reasons, there being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed.
10. Before I part with the case, I would like to mention that the Magistrate shall not be influenced by any finding or observation herein given. He shall decide the case on the basis of the evidence on the record and the law applicable thereto, independently of anything herein contained in this judgment.