1. ORDER INAM BUX BALOCH, J. --- Through this criminal miscellaneous Application, the applicant seeks quashment/expungement of observations recorded by learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana in his judgment dated 2-3-2011 passed in Sessions Case No.237 of 2010 re: State v.
2. Mir Hassan Jaghirani arising out of Crime No.34 of 2010 of Police Station Dhamrah registered for an offence falling under sections 324, 448, 447, 148 and 149, P.P.C. And section 17(3) Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979.
3. The trial Court acquitted the accused has made following observation in his judgment:-- "Further, I order for initiating the proceedings under section 182, Cr.P.C. Against the complainant Hajjan Ali son of Abdul Majeed Abro and Zamindar Khursheed Ahmed Junejo for using their undue influence and pressure upon the police for using their lawful authority against the present accused persons by lodging this false F.I.R. In order to cause injury and harass them. Copy of this Judgment be sent to Superintendent of Police (Investigation) for taking the action against the complainant and Khursheed Ahmed Junejo accordingly with intimation to this Court within (15) days after receipt of this copy of judgment."
4. I have heard Mr.Safdar Ali Bhutto, learned counsel for the applicant/ complainant and Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahio, learned State Counsel.
5. Mr. Safdar Ali Bhutto contended that while acquitting the appellants/accused on the benefit of doubt, the trial Court has passed orders for initiating proceedings under section 182, Cr.P.C. He further contended that though it would be under section 182, P.P.C. But the awareness about law of the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge Mr. Pervaizul Qadir Memon is apparent from the judgment that he has stated in judgment that the proceedings under section 182, Cr.P.C. Be initiated against complainant Hajan Ali son of Abdul Majeed Abro and Zamindar Khursheed Ahmed Junejo as they have influenced the police for lodgment of false F.I.R. He contended that the Presiding Officer having no knowledge about the law even the Presiding Officer having no awareness about the statute and penal laws. He contended that the remarks passed by learned VIth Additional Sessions Larkana (Mr.Pervaizul Qadir Memon) are not sustainable under the law as the court having no jurisdiction to pass such remarks under section 182, Cr.P.C. He has placed reliance on the case of Shaikh Inyatullah v. The State (1992 PCr.LJ 2101), Rani Begum v. Murad Bibi and others (2002 MLD 459), Haji Muhammad Aslam v. I.G Police and others (PLD 2001 Lahore 84), Rana Riaz Ahmed Khan v. The State and others (2008 MLD 746), Iqbal Hussain, v. District Police Officer Hafiz Abad and others (2004 PCr.LJ 256), Chaudhary Muhammad Ashraf v. The State (1975 PCr.LJ 632) and case of Muhammad Ghani v. Khaliq Mian and another (1994 PCr.LJ 1171).
6. Mr. Altaf Hussain Surahio, learned State Counsel contended that the trial Court having no jurisdiction to pass such remarks and direct the police to initiate proceedings against the complainant while acquitting accused on the benefit of doubt. He states that the Presiding Officer is unaware about the law and he has passed orders for initiating proceedings under section 182, Cr.P.C. Though there is no provision in Criminal Procedure Code under section 182, Cr.P.C. He has referred to section 182, Cr.P.C. And contended that he is unable to understand how proceedings under section 182, Cr.P.C. Are to be initiated against the complainant. He contended that if any false information is given to a public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of any person which he knows or believes to be false, such public servant has power to lodge complaint against person in writing as provided under the provisions of section 195, Cr.P.C. He contended that he does not support the remarks of the Presiding Officer of the trial Court as the same are coram non judice.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced at the bar and I have gone through the remarks. I found myself unable to understand the above observations of the trial Court. I have gone through provisions of section 182, Cr.P.C. Which reads as under:-- "182. Place of inquiry or trialb where scene of offence is uncertain or not in one district only or where offence is continuing or consists of several acts. When it is uncertain in which or several local areas an offence was committed or where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than, one, or where it consists of several acts done in different local areas, -it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.
8. It appears that provisions of section 182, Cr.P.C. Pertains to the place of inquiry or trial where the scene of offence is uncertain and I am unable to understand as to how it empowers learned Presiding Officer to pass impugned remarks.
9. I am also unable to understand from where the Presiding Officer of the trial Court has quoted such section. I have gone through the provisions of section 182 of Pakistan Penal Code which reads as under: "182. False information with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person. Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, such public servant:
(a) to do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or
(b) to use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person, Shall be punished with an imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months; or "with fine which may extend to [three thousand rupees], or with both."
10. The trial Court has acquitted the accused by giving benefit of doubt. The trial Court has not honourably acquitted the accused but they were acquitted on the benefit of doubt.
11. I have perused the judgment of the IA trial Court. One Zamindar Khursheed Ahmed Junejo, who neither was party to the proceedings nor any show-cause notice was issued to him and without any cause and reason remarks have been passed against him. If any authority is needed one can refer the case of Chaudhary Muhammad Ashraf v. The State (1975 PCr.LJ 632) and PLD 1958 SC
(Pak) 333).
12. In case of Syed Iqbal Hussain (Supra), learned Lahore High Court while dealing within such situation held that Sessions Judge Hafizabad while rejecting application under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. Directed initiation of proceedings under section 182, P.P.C. Against the petitioner and the learned Lahore High Court has held as under: "(13) The learned Sessions Judge on the se taking that he has given false information to a public servant has directed for initiation of proceedings under section 182, P.P.C. Against him.
13. (14)The learned A.A.-G. Has conceded that the learned Sessions Judge could not order for initiation of such proceedings against him.
14. (15)That is in fact so. According to the case of Muhammad Murad v. The State 1983 PCr.LJ 1097 (Sukkur) that for taking action under section 182, P.P.C. a show-cause notice is to be given to the person against whom proposed action is to be taken and the proceedings initiated without such notice would be illegal. It has not been denied by respondent's side that the petitioner was not issued formal show-cause notice in the matter before directing such proceedings against him. So, on that account alone, the impugned order is illegal.
15. (16)However, it may also be referred here with advantage that according to the case of Nasim Akhtar Soofi v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 336 (Karachi) that in order to initiate action under section 182, P.P.C., it is essential that the false complaint involving cognizable offence should properly be registered, investigated and found to be false and baseless.
16. (17)There is no denying the fact that neither any case was registered nor investigated. So, proceedings under section 182, P.P.C. Could not be initiated against him.
17. (18)In this regard the case of Haji Muhammad Aslam v. Inspector-General and others PLD 2001 Lah.
18. 84 can also be referred to with advantage. In the same it has been held that prerogative to proceed under section 182, P.P.C. Lies only with the Police Officer, who has moved the machinery of law against the accused nominated in the F.I.R. By the complainant and no other Authority can direct the concerned Police Officer to proceed against the first informant, who has given the false information.
19. (19)It this, can be said that the learned Sessions Judge was not competent to direct initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under section 182, P.P.C."
20. The R&Ps of Sessions Case No.237 of 2010 re: State v. Mir Hassan and others arising out of Crime No. 14 of 2010 of Police Station Dhamrah registered for an offence punishable under sections 395 and 324, P.P.C., was called from the learned trial Court and the impugned judgment has been examined which is same as certified true copy of the judgment produced by the applicant. Incharge Additional Registrar of this Court is directed to seal the R&Ps so that no one can dare to tamper with the impugned judgment and sent the same to the learned trial Court.
21. After considering the contentions of learned- counsel for the respective parties, I have minutely examined the submissions advanced at the bar and have carefully gone through the impugned judgment and remarks and am of the considered view that Presiding Officer of the trial Court is unaware about the law being Additional Sessions Judge and even he knew nothing about proper application of provisions of Pakistan Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code, it seems that Presiding Officer of the trial Court has acted under some extraneous consideration and he was influenced by the accused which resulted in passing such remarks against the applicant/complainant and against one anonymous person who had no nexus at any stage of the case and even he was not a party to the proceedings and that such remarks were passed after acquitting the accused against him while extending benefit of doubt to the accused, whereby the learned Presiding Office of the trial Court has not only misapplied the provision of section 182, Cr.P.C. And even gone beyond scope of section 182, P.P.C. Consequently, I expunge the remarks passed by the Presiding Officer of the trial Court i.e. VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana passed in his judgment dated 2-3-2011. Office is directed to send this order to Registrar of this Court for placing the same before honourable Chief Justice for perusal. The Registrar is further directed to place copy of his order on the personal file of Mr. Pervaizul Qadir Memon, VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana.
22. These are the reasons for my short order dated 20-4-2011..