1. CHAUDHARY KHALID RASHEED, J. The captioned appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned District Judge Kotli on 19.04.2017, whereby, the application filed by Talib Hussain, respondent herein for cancellation of succession certificate dated 07.08.2008 and issuance of amended succession certificate has been accepted and respondent Jameela Begum, Khursheed Ahmed Uqabi, Muhammad Ameen, Muhammad Jahangir and Principal Modal School Dhanna Kotli Mustafai (time) were ordered to be proceeded under law for giving false evidence.
2. Precise facts of the case are Talib Hussain, respondent herein, filed an application before the learned District Judge Kotli on 17.02.2010 for cancellation of succession certificate issued on 07.08.2008 and for issuance of amended succession certificate. In the earlier application filed for grant of succession certificate the appellants, herein, appeared as witnesses/Guarantor and got recorded their statements in support of the application. At the conclusion of proceedings, the learned District Judge issued amended certificate and ordered concerned S.H.O. for registration of the case against appellants herein for giving false statements and committing fraud with the Court vide its impugned order/dated 19.04.2017, hence the captioned appeal.
3. The learned Advocate for the appellant vehemently argued that appellants did not give false evidence to get any benefit and they recorded their statements according to deposition of applicant on sympathetic grounds, hence they cannot be proceed for giving false evidence. The learned Advocate further argued that as due to evidence of appellants, no one suffered any financial loss, hence on this ground too, appellants are entitled to get leniency of the Court but the Court below has passed the impugned order in a harsh manner which is liable to be set at naught.
4. The learned counsel for the other side supported the impugned judgment and submitted that as appellants herein intentionally gave false evidence, therefore, the impugned judgment entails to be sustained as being a judicious edict.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case with utmost care and caution.
6. Section 193 Azad Penal Code, envisages that whoever intentionally gives false evidence in a judicial proceeding shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. In the instant case, on remand of the case by this Court appellants filed objections and took a specific stance in their objections filed before the Court below that were aware of the fact that Muhammad Hussain was son of late Muhammad Shafi, however, appellants got recorded their statements on sympathetic grounds without any mala fide intention or personal benefits. It is also admitted by the appellants that they new that Shabeerat Bibi was not daughter of Muhammad Shafi rather she was born from the wedlock of Jameela Begum with his first husband. The learned District Judge has rightly observed that appellants herein have admitted that they knew truth but despite that they intentionally gave false evidence, thus the order recorded by learned District Judge is justified. Reliance may be placed on 2014 SCR 372. Perjury is one of the most heinous social and moral offences which adversely affects the administration of Justice. It is punishable offence under the law, against the injunctions of the Holy Quran and also caused to make a mockery of the judicial system. Any person who deliberately utters a false statement during the solemn proceedings of a Court of law, knowing it to be false does not deserve any leniency and ought never be let off lightly. The tendency on the part of the Courts to take a tolerant and indulgent view of such cases tended to encourage perjury in our Courts with the result that it has now become so common that witnesses do not feel any qualm of conscience while making a false statement in a Court of law and have ceased to consider it as an act involving any moral turpitude. The Courts must rest this tendency with a firm hand and do everything in their power to eradicate this evil from its roots by awarding stiffer sentences would be a positive step in this direction. It is trite law that when the statement of a witness apparently appears to be false to his knowledge, he should be tried for perjury and if the offences proved he should he awarded exemplary punishment so that the professional witnesses are eliminated from the proceedings in the courts of justice. The appellants who have admitted in their objections that they intentionally gave false evidence to deprive of the legal heirs of deceased Muhammad Shafi in order to include an unconcerned person in the list of his legal heirs to obtain share from the legacy of deceased, thus they are liable to be taken to task for their illegal act.
7. It is also pertinent to mark that this Court remanded the case to the Court below with the observations to consider whether section 195, P.P.C. read with section 476, Cr.P.C. are applicable in the case and whether it was necessary to hear the appellants before issuance of direction for registration of the case. As far as the applicability of section 195, P.P.C. is concerned that is not attracted in the case in hand because appellants gave false evidence in a judicial proceedings which may not be caused any person to be convicted of an offence rather section 193, P.P.C. is fully attracted. So far the hearing of appellants before issuance of direction for registration of the case is concerned, the Court below on remand of the case has provided a right of hearing to the appellants. Even otherwise in my considered view the hearing of appellants before issuance of direction for registration of the case was not necessary and appellants had a chance to submit their view before the Investigating Officer after registration of the case. Furthermore, it is not the requirement of law to provide a right of hearing to an accused before registration of the case. The Honourable Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in PLJ 1990 SC (AJK) 115 has observed that preliminary inquiry is not mandatory against a witness for giving false evidence and a complaint can be filed without hearing person to be proceeded against. It was further observed that the Court is duty bound to lodge complaint against the offending person. Similar observations were recorded by the Honourable Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in PLD 1981 SC
(AJK) 86 and PLD 1981 SC (AJK) 3.
8. The sum and substance of the above discussion is finding no essence the instant appeal is hereby dismissed.