' ABDUL RASOOL MEMON J.---Muhammad Yakoob Gopang, the applicant in this case registered F.I.R.
No,199/2010 at Ploice Station, Qasimabad alleging therein that he is Deputy Director HESCO WAPDA, Hyderabad; that on 6-2-2010 a robbery was committed in his house, such case was registered at Police Station Bhitai Nagar against Mumtaz alias Abdul Sattar Umrani and Abdul Qadir Unar, from whom robbed amount was recovered, they were challaned, case was pending against both the accused and accused Abdul Qadir was confined at Central Prison Hyderabad. It was further alleged that on 22-6-2010 at 1034 hours, said Abdul Qadir made telephonic call to complainant/applicant from Central Prison Hyderabad through cell phone No,0313-8905552 and asked him to pay Bhatta to his man else his children will be killed and such message was sent on.
Mobile phone No,0301-3590601 stating that his man Ghulam Murtaza Jamali will meet him at the gate of Poly Technical College at 1.30 p.m. To whom Rs,50,000/- should be given. The complainant passed on such information to duty officer SIP Sohail Sarwar at Police Station, Qasimabad who asked him to go to the pointed place and he will follow him. At about 1330 hours, complainant arrived at the gate of College where three persons met with him, one of them disclosed his identity as Ghulam Murtaza to have been sent by Abdul Qadir. He demanded Rs,50000/- and applicant/complainant gave him two currency notes of Rs,5000/- each bearing Nos. H0758020 and B7371498, in the meantime SIP Sohail Sarwar along with his staff reached there and apprehended said Ghulam Murtaza Jamali while his two companions fled away. The currency notes of applicant/ complainant as noted above were also recovered from his pocket, then the F.I.R. Was accordingly registered under sections 384, 109, 34, P.P.C., 6(2)(K) of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
2. After investigation, case was challaned in the court of Special Judge ATA Hyderabad which ended into acquittal as the applicant/ complainant and mashir did not identify the accused so also SIP Sohail Sarwar, who had allegedly arrested the accused Ghulam Murtaza and recovered robbed amount from him, did not properly depose against the accused, thereafter a show-cause notice under section 193, P.P.C. Was issued to all these three P.Ws. According to applicant, show- case notices of other P.Ws were vacated but his reply to show-cause notice was not accepted and he was called for personal appearance by the learned trial court vide letter dated 29-1-2013 and 2- 4-2013, hence apprehending his arrest, he has made instant complaint to this court, which has been treated as Cr. Misc. Application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C.
3. Heard applicant in person, learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh for the State and have gone through the material available on record.
4. Perjury is one of the most heinous social and moral offence. It is not only an offence punishable under the law but is also against the injunctions of Holy Quran. Section 193, P.P.C. Provides punishment for intentionally giving false evidence. This section has two wings, first paragraph of this section prescribes punishment for intentionally giving false evidence in a judicial proceedings or fabricating false evidence for the purpose of its being used in the judicial proceedings. Second paragraph of this section prescribes punishment for intentionally giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence in any case, other than judicial proceedings. Material thing is judicial proceedings.
5. In order to make out the prima facie case of perjury against any person, it must be shown by positive evidence or by circumstances of the case that a false statement has been given by him in relation to the proceedings in the court. In the instant case the trial court before parting with the case recorded observation that the applicant/complainant, mashir Abdullah had given false statements before the court as such notices under section 193, P.P.C. Were ordered to be issued against them. The applicant has pointed out that though mashir Abdullah had not filed separate reply to notice under section 193, P.P.C. But adopted the reply submitted by him, in spite of that the notice issued against mashir has been withdrawn and his notice is still pending and he is being insisted for personal appearance which is clear discrimination on the part of the Presiding Officer of the learned trial court. Perusal of judgment of the learned trial court annexed with the application candidly shows that the applicant has fully supported the version given in the F.I.R.
Except he did not identify the accused said to have muffled faces at the time of alleged offence and recovery of Bhatta amount was disclosed by the police to have been made from accused Ghulam Murtaza as such it cannot be said that he has resiled from his'F.I.R.
6. Learned Additional Prosecutor General Sindh supported the version of the applicant.
7. Admittedly statement of the applicant before his evidence in the trial court on oath was never recorded. It has already been held by this court in case reported in 1992 Cr.L.J. 3566 (sic) that in order to make a person liable for perjury, he should have made his statement on oath regarding the fact on which his statement is based and then denies those facts on oath on a subsequent occasion. It is further held that his earlier statement regarding the fact must be on oath and his subsequent statement also must be on oath and if both the statements conflicts each other and they cannot be reconciled then a persons can be prosecuted against perjury.
8. In the case in hand as mentioned above admittedly there was no previous statement of the applicant recorded on oath but there was only F.I.R., which certainly was not on oath, in such circumstances absolutely there was nothing before the learned trial court to constitute an offence of perjury under section 193, P.P.C. Against the applicant, as such the notice issued to the applicant/complainant amounts to abuse of process of court which cannot be allowed as this court has got inherent powers under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. To prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise secure ends of justice.
9. In view of the above circumstances, show-cause notice under section 193, P.P.C. Issued against the applicant and proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.
' The Criminal Miscellaneous stands disposed of.