' WAQAR HASSAN MIR, J.---Through the present Crl. Misc. No,298-M of 2010, which has arisen out of Criminal Appeal No, 48-J of 2009, the applicant has requested for initiation of proceedings against respondents Nos. 2 to 5 under section 476-A, Cr.P.C.
2. The backdrop of the present scenario, is that respondent No,4 who is the accused in case F. I. R.
No, 546 dated 30-6-2007 offence under section 302, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station Ghulam Muhammad Abad, Faisalabad, was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 27-1-2009 to death with further direction to pay a compensation of Rs,1,00,000 to the legal heirs of the deceased as provided under section 544-A, Cr.P.C., in default whereof to further undergo for six months. The said respondent preferred an appeal i.e, Crl. Appeal No,48-J of 2009 before this Court and during the pendency thereof, he filed Criminal Miscellaneous No,2892-M of A 2009 for his acquittal on the basis of compromise, upon which report was called from the learned District and Sessions Judge, Faisalabad regarding the genuineness or otherwise of the compromise, who vide letter No,2-Ahlmad dated 9-1-2010 has reported that the deceased Muhammad Nabeel was bachelor and was survived by his father Muhammad Jameel being his sole legal heir having no objection to the acquittal of the appellant after having forgiven him in the name of Almighty Allah, while mother of the deceased has already died. Learned Deputy Prosecutor-General and learned Assistant Advocate-General Punjab after having gone through the said report have submitted that the State has no objection to the acceptance of the compromise and consequent acquittal of the respondent/appellant from the case. This Court vide judgment dated 12-1-2010 after having gone through the report of the learned Sessions Judge and also statements annexured therewith come to the conclusion that the compromise has been effected between the parties for mutual harmony and B thus by accepting the same, the appeal has been allowed and the impugned judgment dated 27-1-2009 has been set aside with the result that the appellant acquitted of the charge and death sentence was not confirmed.
3. Now through the instant application, the applicant/complainant of the case has submitted that he never entered into compromise with the accused person; never appeared before the learned Sessions Judge Faisalabad to make a statement compounding the offence and that he also never signed or thumb-marked the said C statement and thus he has prayed for initiating proceedings against respondents Nos. 2 to 5 under section 476-A, Cr.P.C.
4. This Court vide order, dated 10-2-2010 passed the following order:-- "Before taking any action, we send this matter to the learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, who will look into the matter get specimen signature and thumb-impression of the applicant and then send the same along with signature and thumb-impression of the applicant on the statement made before him compounding the offence and also his identity card, Nikah Nama, Bank Account and for comparison report to the Technical Handwriting Expert FIA Headquarter Islamabad."
' In compliance of the above order, the learned Sessions Judge has sent a detailed inquiry report and the operative apart thereof read as follows:-- "In view of above I am confirmed in my view that Muhammad Jamil complainant/father of deceased never appeared before this Court; he did not get recorded his statement; he did not sign or put his thumb-impression on his statement at all; some fake person was produced in the Court who had also forged signature and thumb-impression of Muhammad Jamil, convict and Sarfraz Ali Khan, Ex-Nazim, prima facie are responsible for all this wrong."
' The learned Sessions Judge, in order to avoid from any such type of incidents in future, has also made certain proposals qua recording of the statements in compromise case not only in the matters before this court but also in original jurisdiction.
5. From the above narrations of facts coupled with the report of the learned Sessions Judge, we appreciate the efforts made by the learned Sessions Judge in finding out the truth that instead of Muhammad Jamil/complainant (father of the deceased), some fake person has entered appearance showing himself to be the complainant, who had also forged signature and thumb- impression of said Muhammad Jamil, resultantly, he has prima facie found responsible respondent No,2 and Sarfraz Ali Khan Ex. Nazim for all what has been done. However, this Court is of the view that not only the convict and Sarfraz Ali Khan Ex-Nazim there are other persons who have played active role in releasing the convict by making false statement as also signing, thumb marking the statement and identifying the complainant, thus they all are responsible in this behalf.
' As regards the prayer of the learned counsel for the applicant qua initiation of proceedings under section 476-A, Cr.P.C. Against respondents Nos.2 to 5 is concerned, it is stated that the criteria and procedure for initiating action in such like matter is laid down in the provisions of section 476, Cr.P.C., which reads as under:-- "476. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195. ---(1) When any offence referred to in section 195, subsection (1) clause (b) or clause (c), has been committed in, or in relation to a proceeding in any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, the Court may take cognizance of the offence and try the same in accordance with the procedure prescribed for summary trials in Chapter XXII.
(2) When in any case tried under subsection (1), the Court finds the offender guilty, it may, notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (2) of section 262:--
(a) pass any sentence on the offender authorized by law for such offence, except a sentence of death, or, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment exceeding five years, if such Court be a High Court, a Court of Session, a District Court or any Court exercising the power of a Court of Session or a District Court;
(b) sentence the offender to simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or to pay a fine not exceeding [one thousand rupees] or both, if such Court be a Court of Magistrate of the first class, a Civil Court other than a High Court, a District Court, or a Court exercising the powers of a District Court or Revenue Court not inferior to the Court of Collector;
(c) sentence the offender to simple imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month, or to pay a fine not exceeding fifty rupees or both, if such Court be a Criminal Court or Revenue Court other than a Court referred to in clause (a) or clause (b).
(3) The powers conferred on Civil, Revenue and Criminal Courts under this section may be exercised in respect of any offence referred to in subsection (1) and alleged to have been committed in relation to any proceeding in such Court by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of subsection (3) of S .195 .
(4) Any person sentenced by any Court, under this section may, notwithstanding anything hereinafter contained, appeal;
(a) in the case of a sentence by the High Court, to the Supreme Court;
(b) in case of a sentence by a Court of Session or District Court, or a Court exercising the powers of a Court of Session or a District Court, to the High Court, and
(c) in any other case, to the Sessions Judge.
(5) The provisions of Chapter XXXI shall, so far as they are applicable, apply to appeal under this section and the Appellate Court may alter the finding or reduce or enhance the sentence appealed against.
' Moreover, the provisions of section 476-A are also reproduced as under:-- "Section 476-A Forwarding of cases for trial by Courts having jurisdiction.---(1) If the Court in any case considers that the person accused of any of the offence referred to in section 476, subsection
(1) and committed in, or in relation to, and proceedings before it, should not be tried under that section, such Court may, after recording the facts constituting the offence and the statement of the accused person, as hereinbefore provided, forward the case to a Court having jurisdiction to try the case, and may require security to be given for the appearance of such accused person before such Court, or if sufficient security is not given, shall forward such person in custody to such Court.
(2) The Court to which a case is forwarded under this section shall proceed to hear the complaint against the accused person in the manner hereinbefore provided.
6. From the bare reading of the above definition coupled with the narration of facts, we find that this is a fit case for proceeding under the provisions of sections 476, 476-A, Cr.P.C. Against respondents Nos.2 to 5, which are squarely applicable in this case. As the offence has been committed in relation to the proceedings before the learned Sessions Judge, thus he is directed to proceed under the afore-mentioned sections against respondents Nos.2 to 5 in this behalf. Besides the above, let non-bailable warrant of arrest of respondents Nos.2 to 5 be also issued and the D.P.O.
Concerned is directed to ensure their production before the learned Court. However, the convict be sent to jail wherefrom he was got released, to serve his sentence already awarded to him by the learned trial Court through the judgment dated 27-1-2009.
7. With the above direction, this application is allowed and the order dated 12-1-2010 whereby the respondent No,2/ convict has been acquitted, is hereby recalled with the result that Criminal Appeal No, 48-J of 2009 shall be deemed pending before this Court.
8. Before parting, it may be stated that it is a matter of great concern that such type of incidents are alarming to the situation and thus with a view to curb the same and also to ensure that the same as may not be repeated in future, we approve the proposals mentioned below as suggested by the learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, which are being formed part of this judgment and thus the learned Registrar of this Court is directed to circulate the same to all the Judicial Officers throughout the Province with the direction that before recording the statements in compromise cases, the said proposals shall be strictly followed and adhered to. The proposal are as under:--
(a) In all the Courts computer facilities are available. With every computer Webcam (Cambera) be attached which costs only Rs,2000.00/ 3000.00.
(b) At the time of recording of statement of a witness or any of the legal heirs of deceased, photograph can be obtained directly from that Webcam.
(c) When the print of statement is to be obtained, on one side of the said statement the print of photo of the person concerned can also be taken.
(d) By using Webcam and getting printing of photograph from printer, all possibilities of tampering even for replacement of snap shall be eliminated. (Note: a specimen statement with photograph is attached with this report for kind perusal).
(e) The Nazim or Naib Nazim must be of the same locality where legal heirs of deceased reside for the purpose of verification of compromise and particularly identification of the persons who appear in the Court.
(f) Bio Metric System is the most important and modern device because by using this system the thumb impression of a person can be received through scanner without use of any ink.
(g) Once thumb-impression is received, it can be saved in computer. A CD can be prepared of all these proceedings and can be sent along with report to the honourable High Court.
(h) Once thumb-impression is received and saved in a secret file, in future, there will be no need to send the same to any handwriting expert because this job shall be done by the computer within minutes.
(1) Till the time all these proposals are considered a direction be issued to all the Sessions Judges/all Judicial Officers that inquiry should be made in immediate presence of concerned Judge. By no means matter shall be dealt by any duty Sessions Judge, unless specifically directed by the honourable High Court. Latest coloured photograph of every legal heir must be pasted with the gum of quality on the statement in a way that its replacement may not be possible in future.