' MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J.---This Criminal Appeal has been brought to challenge the impugned judgment, passed by Ist learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thatta on 13-7-2011 in Sessions Case No,41 of 2011 in so far as it relates to the conviction of the appellant only.
2. Concisely, the facts of the case are that the appellant being sub-inspector, registered an F.I.R.
No,15/2011 on 28-2-2011 on behalf of the State at Police Station Mirpur Sakro under sections 324, 353, 411, 34, 337-A(ii), 337-F(ii), P.P.C. The learned trial court vide impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons from the charge, however, while acquitting the accused persons, the learned trial court simultaneously convicted the appellant on the ground that he misused his official powers and lodged a false complaint/F.I.R., therefore he, was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for six months. The observation of the learned trial court is reproduced as under:-- ' "Before parting of this order it is worthwhile to mention here that during the course of proceedings it is observed that complainant namely. Dilsher not only lodged false case against the accused persons but involved them in a series of cases wherein they have been acquitted, since the complainant has misused his official powers and excess committed by him being a police official in relation to this function and duties as admitted by him that he made false statement before this court during his evidence. He is taken into custody and remanded to the jail to serve sentence for six months. The D.I.G. Concerned is. Directed to take appropriate and necessary action against such delinquent officer in accordance with law, as such kind of black sheep should not be spared; who earning bad name and stigma on the face of police department. The copy of this order be sent to the D.P.O. Thatta and D.I.G. Hyderabad Sindh Police, for action and compliance."
3. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that being a police officer, the appellant rightly set into motion the machinery of law and lodged the F.I.R. Against the Culprits but they were acquitted by the trial court, however, he submits that without affording or allowing any opportunity of defence the learned trial court convicted the appellant.
4. The learned APG also of the view that before awarding conviction, the mandatory proviuions of law were not followed and not only the appellant was convicted but serious drastic actions were also recommended against him and matter was referred to D.I.G. Concerned to take proper and necessary action against the delinquent officer which is not justified.
5. I have seen the impugned judgment in which it is clearly discernible and perceptible that no opportunity was given to the appellant and even no charge was framed against him for lodging a false complaint, however, in the judgment of acquittal, the appellant was convicted Which shows that before reaching any sanguine culmination against the present appellant whether he lodged the F.I.R. With bona fide intention or mala Aide, he was' convicted without providing any chance of defence. The form of .Charge is provided under section 221, Cr.P.C. Which is in fact under the criminal administration of justice is a gist of whole case against the accused. The purpose of charge is to tell the accused as precisely and-concisely the nature of offence for which he is charged. Rational for laying down the detailed procedure for framing the charge is that the accused should know the nature of accusation so that he may give a proper reply and is not misled by the vagueness in the said accusation. Spectrum of charge should be such that all eventualities and exigencies till the conclusion of trial can be made with the caution that no prejudice is caused to the accused.
6. Section 367 of Cr.p.C. Pertains to the language and contents of judgment, which reads as under:-
367. Language of judgment: Contents of judgment.--(1) Every such judgment shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by this Code, be written by the presiding officer of the Court, or from the dictation of such presiding officer in the language of the Court, or in English, and shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision; and shall be dated and signed by the presiding officer in open Court at the time of pronouncing it and where it is not written by the Presiding Officer with his own hand, every page of such judgment shall be signed by him.
(2). It shall specify the offence (if any) of which, and the section of the Pakistan Penal Code or other law under which the accused is convicted, and the punishment to which he is sentenced.
(3) Judgment in alternative.---When the conviction is under the Pakistan Penal Code and it is doubtful under which of two sections, or under which or two parts of the same section of that Code the offence falls, the Court shall distinctly express the same, and pass judgment in the alternative.
(4) If it be a judgment of acquittal, it shall state the offence of which the accused is acquitted and direct that he be set at liberty.
(5) If the accused is convicted of an offence punishable with death, and the Court sentences him to any punishment other than death, and Court shall in its judgment state the reason why sentence of death was not passed.
(6) For the purposes of this section, an order under section 118 or section 123, subsection (3), shall be deemed to be a judgment.
7. It is plainly provided in the aforesaid provision of law that judgment shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision and subsection (2), unequivocally speaks that the judgment shall specify the offence, if any, of which, and the section of the Pakistan Penal Code or other law under which the accused is convicted and the punishment to which he is sentenced. It is obvious from the impugned judgment with regard to the appellant that neither it is mentioned that .Under which section of law the appellant was convicted nor any charge was framed, even no statement of appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C., which_ is sheer illegality floating on the surface of record. Despite this incongruity, the appellant was convicted. The word judgment used in section 367, Cr.P.C. Means the judicial verdict deciding a case finally so far as the court -seized of the case is concerned. While writing the judgment it is incumbent upon the Court .To ponder over all possible situations and probabilities for reaching just and proper conclusion and it cannot act like resolving a mathematical proposition. The judgment should contain points for determination and should specify the offence if any of which and section of law under which accused was convicted and the punishment to which he was sentenced.
8. It was bounden duty that every order passed under the provisions of any statute in judicial or quasi judicial capacity must contain reasons, it should be objective and not merely subjective in nature. Subjective order cannot be termed as an order supported by reasons. Expression "reason" has not been defined in any law, but in common parlance it denotes an action taken or order passed by the person, officer or Authority which is reasonable and conforming to the requirement of reasonability. Reasonability can be gauged by examining the findings in the order and if there is no discussion or any finding and the order has been passed by mere reproduction of the words used in the statute, it would not be a proper order supported by reasons. Such an order would be a non judicial, non-speaking and an un-reasoned order. In order to be reasonable there should be a finding demonstrating links between the material on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. In every ease in which an appeal or revision lies, the Authority passing the order is required to record findings and discuss the material available on record, so that the appellate Court may examine whether the order passed is in accordance with the material available on record or there is any misreading or non-reading of evidence, or any material fact available on record has been ignored causing miscarriage. Of justice. Reference can be made to 1996 SCM R 3 and PLD 2006 Karachi 1980.
9. At this point in time, I would also -like to refer to section 537, Cr.P.C. Which deals the situations in which finding or sentence of court may possibly reversible by reason of error or omission in charge or other proceedings but simultaneously it also makes comprehensible that no finding, sentence order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction shall -be reversed or altered on appeal or revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, report by police officer under section 173, summons, warrant, charge, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under the Code, or of any error, omission or irregularity in the mode of trial, including any misjoinder of charges unless such error omission or irregularity has in fact occasioned a failure of justice.
10. After going through the impugned judgment, I have reached to an irresistible conclusion that the trial court convicted the appellant without affording any opportunity of defence and passed the impugned judgment in a perfunctory and slipshod manner which is not only perverse but also perpetuated the failure of justice which cannot be cured or alleviated by section 53w, Cr,P.C.
11. Since a short point is involved which does not require any minute consideration or appreciation of evidence as the whole conviction is based on irregular proceedings without framing of charge and or evidence hence this appeal is admitted to regular hearing and allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment to the extent of conviction of the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted.
This appeal is disposed of in the above terms.