MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J. Baba Sufi Muhammad Iqbal (petitioner) moved a petition before the learned Ex- Officio Justice of Peace, Sumandari, District Faisalabad with the caption of implementation of the order dated 13.6.2017 for registration of case against Zulfiqar Sian, S.P . etc. but in the prayer clause it was stated as under:- "In the light of submissions made above, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this application may kindly be accepted and proceedings may kindly be initiated against the respondents Nos.2 and 3 for making false statement before this court and they be summoned, prosecuted and convicted strictly in accordance with law in the interest of justice."
2. The allegation levelled by the petitioner in this application before the learned Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace, Sumandari, District Faisalabad, in short, is that the police officials submitted false reports based on mis-statements and concealment of facts in an earlier petition filed by him. This petition was filed on 10.3.2018, a number of adjournments were obtained by the petitioner or his counsel and finally vide order dated 14.5.2019, this application was dismissed by the learned Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace, Sumandari, District Faisalabad. Although, the learned Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace did not touch the legal issues and as a short law point is involved, learned Law Officers accept notice for today .
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that although it was established from the record that a false report was submitted by DSP, Tandlianwala but learned Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace, Sumand ari dismissed the application of the petitioner and refused to proceed against the concerned officials under section 476, Cr.P.C. without any legal justification.
4. Learned Additional Advocate-General, Punjab and learned Deputy Prosecutor General both submit that Ex- Officio Justice of Peace is not a Court and no proceedings can be initiated under section 476, Cr .P.C.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner , the learned Law Officers and perused the record with their able assistance.
6. The question arises firstly whether Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace while exercising his powers under section 22(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 acts as a Court/or not and secondly whether he can take action in respect of any false statement made before him under section 476, Cr.P.C. Firstly , this question was taken up by a Full Bench of this Court (comprising three Members Bench) in the case reported as "Khizer Hayat and others v. Inspector- General of Police (Punjab), Lahore and others" (PLD 2005 Lah. 470 ) and it was held as under:-- "That surely is not the case in Pakistan where no statute confers any judicial powe r upon a Justice of the Peace or an ex-officio Justice of the Peace. We can, therefore, safely hold that functions to be performed by a Justice of the Peace or an ex-officio Justice of the Peace in Pakistan are merely administrative and ministerial in nature and character . We feel fortified in so holding by the provisions of section 6, Cr.P.C. which categorizes the classes of criminal courts and Magistrates in Pakistan and a Justice of the Peace or an ex-officio Justice of the Peace is not included in any such class of courts or Magistrates. Apart, from that sections 28 and 29, Cr.P.C. specify as to which courts are to try which offences and in those sections too a Justice of the Peace or an ex-officio Justice of the Peace does not figure at all."
7. This question was also brought before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan and a Full Bench (consists of three Members Bench) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported as "Muhammad Ali v.
Additional LG., Faisalabad and others" (PLD 2014 SC 753) held that Justice of Peace was not a court and his functions were executive, administrative or ministerial.
8. Later on, in another case, a larger Bench comprising five Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case reported as "Younas Abbas and others v. Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal and others" (PLD 2016 SC 581) did not agree with the ratio of the Khizar Hayat and Muhammad Ali's cases (supra) to the extent of the nature of the functions of the Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace and held that these are not executive, administrative or ministerial but are quasi-judicial in nature. The relevant portion of the judgment is as under:- "The functions, the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace performs, are not executive, admin istrative or ministerial inasmuch as he does not carry out, manage or deal with things mechanically . His functions as described in Clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of subsection (6) of section 22-A, Cr.P.C., are quasi-judicial as he entertains applications, examined the record, hears the parties, passes orders and issues directions with due application of mind. Every lis before him demands discretion and judgment. Functions so performed cannot be termed as executive, administrative or ministerial on any account. We thus don't agree with the ratio of the judgments rendered in the cases of Khizar Hayat and others v. Inspector General of Police Punjab Lahore and others (PLD 2005 Lah. 470) and Muhammad Ali v. Additional I.G. (PLD 2015 SC 753) inasmuch as it holds that the functions performed by the Ex-officio Justice of Peace are executive, administrative or ministerial."
9. However , the learned Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan did not differ with the earlier view that Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace was not a Court. When it is settled that Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace is not a Court then answer of the second question becomes easier and the Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace could only exercise the powers under sections 22-A, 22-B, Cr.P.C. and proceedings before him cannot be declared as judicial proceedings nor he functions as a Court.
10. The apex court in a case reported as "Rab Nawaz v. The State" (2011 SCMR 1485 ) wherein Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace took action under section 228, P .P.C., observed as follows:- "The record of this case shows that the appellant had been proceeded against for violating/disobeying an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha which order had been passed by him in his capacity as an ex- officio Justice of the Peace. The provisions of section 228, P.P.C. are attracted to a case involving insult or interruption during a "judicial proceedings" and it has already been held by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in the cases of Khizer Hayat and others v. Inspector- General of Police (Punjab); Lahore and others (PLD 2005 Lahore 470 (FB) and Pir Abdul Qayyum Shah v. S.H.O. and 4 others (2005 PCr.LJ 35) that proceedings conducted by an ex-officio Justice of the Peace are not judicial proceedings. In view of this legal position the appellant's conviction and sentemy recorded for an offence under section 228, P.P.C. are clearly illegal and unsustainable. Apart from that the provisions of section 228, P.P.C. are attracted to an insult or interruption during some judicial proceedings but in the case in hand no such insult or interruption during any judicial proceedings had been alleged against the appellant and the only allegation levelled against him was that he had failed to carry out an order passed on an earlier occasion by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha."
11. In another case reported as "Amanat Masih v. Additional Sessions Judge, Kasur and 4 others" (PLD 2007 Lahore 53), this Court held that direction given to the S.H.O. by the learned Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under section 182, P.P.C. is beyond the purview of section 22-A, Cr.P.C., hence in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon him under the law .
12. The Hon'ble Sindh High Court in a case reported as "Muhammad Nafees alias Sohail v. The State and others" (PLD 2005 Karachi 638) held that Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace was not justified rather empowered to impose fine/costs upon the petitioner while rejecting his application, filed under section 22-A, Cr .P.C.
13. The above survey of the case-law is to be considered in the light of Section 476, Cr.P.C. The same is re- produced below for ready reference:- "Procedure in cases mentioned in sectio n 195. (1) When any offences referred to in section 195, subsection (1) clause (b) or clause (c), has been committed in, or in relation to a proceedings 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 Sessions 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 hereinbefore 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."
14. Section 476, Cr.P.C. is itself clear that it covers only those proceedings which are carried out in any Court and Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace is not a court under this Section and any statement, report submitted before the Ex- Officio Justice of Peace cannot be considered that they will submit before the Court under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, hence when Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace is not a court no proceedings under section 476, Cr.P.C. could be carried out if a party feels that any misinformation has been submitted before Ex-Of ficio Justice of Peace in the proceedings under Sections 22-A, 22-B, Cr .P.C.
15. For what has been discussed above, the petition in hand having no merit is dismissed .