' This is an appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal of Muhammad Younis and Muhammad Sarwar, respondents, by Ch. Sardar Ali Gaursi, Magistrate Section 30, Lahore on 20th August, 1983.
2. The brief facts of the case are that an ejectment petition was filed by Muhammad Younis and Muhammad Sarwar, the present respondents, against one Malik Nasir-ud-Din, which came up before Mr. Zia Ullah Khan Niazi, Rent Controller, Lahore, for disposal. During the proceedings, a document purporting to be an Iqrarnama executed by the respondents in favour of said Malik Nasir-ud-Din acknowledging the receipt of Rs,30,000 was brought on the file. At the time of the recording of the evidence, the respondents were confronted with this document and they sought an adjournment for a few days. On the adjourned date, when the document was seen by the learned Rent Controller, he found that the signatures of the respondents on the same had been tampered. Malik Nasir-ud-Din thereupon filed an application under section 476, Cr.P.C. Before the Rent Controller for necessary action to be taken against the respondents and also for holding an inquiry to determine the person responsible for this forgery. Mr. Zia Ullah Khan Niazi, Rent Controller, after holding an inquiry, held the respondents to be responsible for the tampering and consequently sent a report to Police Station Krishan Nagar for registration of a case against the respondents under sections420/468/471/474, P.P.C. On receipt of this report, formal F.I.R. Was registered against the respondents. After investigation, a challan was filed against the respondents. After some evidence was recorded, the respondents moved an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. For their acquittal, on the ground that section 195(c), Cr.P.C. Had not been complied with by the learned Rent Controller. The learned Magistrate accepted the said application and acquitted the respondents vide his order, dated 20th August, 1983. Being aggrieved by the said order, the State has preferred the present appeal against the acquittal of the respondents, which is now before me for disposal.
3. On behalf of the State it is submitted that Mr. Zia Ullah Khan Niazi, Rent Controller, who filed the complaint against the respondents, was not a Court and in these circumstances the Rent Controller was not legally bound to submit a complaint in writing to the District Magistrate or the Ilaqa Magistrate under section 195 (1) (c), Cr.P.C. In this connection, learned counsel has referred to Azim Ullah v. Syed Shaukat Ali 1972 P Cr. L J 306 and Khadim Mohy-ud-Din etc. v. Ch. Rehmat Ali Nagra PLD 1965 SC 459.
4. On behalf of the respondents it is submitted that the inquiryconducted by Mr. Zia Ullah Khan Niazi was not in his capacity as'a Rent Controller, but as a Civil Judge and, therefore, a complaint had to be filed by him before the Magistrate, before the latter could take cognizance of the offences regarding cheating and forgery. In this connection it is submitted that the complaint filed by him on 6th November, 1982 was as a Civil Judge, which is also obvious from the order passed by him that day where the words "Civil Judge, Lahore" appear under his signature. It is further submitted that the proceedings conducted by Mr. Zia Ullah Khan Niazi as a Civil Judge, Lahore, which led upto his order dated 6th November, 1982 were proceedings under section 476, Cr.P.C., which were coram non judice, as he could not have conducted the same in his capacity as a Civil Judge, as the proceedings out of which the complaint was filed were those conducted by him as a Rent Contoller. It is, therefore, submitted that the order, dated 6th November, 1982 was basically illegal and without lawful authority. Lastly, it is submitted that a complaint under section 195 (1) (c) has to be a direct complaint to the Magistrate and not one to the Police Station and where such complaint is made to a Police Station and a challan is submitted thereupon, the proceedings are incompetent and the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case. In this connection, Ch. Muhammad Roshan v. The State PLD 1978 Lah. 307 and Mst. Zahida Khatoon v.
S.H.O., Police Station Mozang, Lahore PLD 1982 Lah. 601 have been referred.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents and have also perused the record. It cannot be denied that Muhammad Younis and Muhammad Samar, the present respondents, had filed an eviction petition against Malik Nasirud-Din, which was heard by Mr. Zia Ullah Khan Niazi, Civil Judge, exercising powers of the Rent Controller, Lahore before whom the tampered document was used. It also cannot be denied that Malik Nasirud-Din then filed an application under section 476, Cr.P.C:-- "In the Court of Mr. Zia Ullah Khan Niazi, Civil Judge/Rent Controller." ' for initiating an inquiry in respect of the overwriting made on the Iqrarnama, alleged to have been executed by them in favour of Malik Nasir-ud-Din, and for a criminal case to be registered against such persons who may be found responsible. The said Rent Controller thereupon held an inquiry and by his order, dated 6th November, 1982 found that the respondents had tampered with the signatures on the Iqrarnama and that the respondents should be penalized for this heinous offence and he ordered the Police Station Krishan Nagar, Lahore, to register a case against them under section 420/468/471/474, P.P.C. Unfortunately, the order of Mr. Zia Ullah Khan Niazi, Rent Controller, dated 6th November, 1982, appears to be signed as follows:-- "(Sd.)
Zia Ullah Khan Niazi 6th November, 1982 Civil Judge, Lahore" ' but the fact that it was passed by the said officer exercising powers of Rent Controller, cannot be denied. The petition under section 476, Cr.P.C. Filed by Malik Nasir-ud-Din related to the Rent Restriction case, inquiry was conducted on the said application in relation to the said rent case. A miscellaneous application filed by Malik Nasir-ud-Din on 7-10-1982 to expedite the proceedings on the application filed under section 476, Cr.P.C. Was also one filed:-- "In the Court of Mr. Zia Ullah Khan Niazi, Civil Judge, with powers of Rent Controller, Lahore."
The mere fact that the learned Rent Controller, when signing his order, dated 6th November, 1982, did not add the words "with powers of Rent Controller" after the words "Civil Judge", does not mean that his order suffers from any legal defect. Misdescription in the designation of an officer, does not invalidate his order. If any authority is required for this view, Piao Gul v. The State PLD 1960 SC 307 may be referred. The order, therefore, of Mr. Zia Ullah Khan Niazi, Civil Judge, Lahore, dated 6th November, 1982, directing the Police Station Krishan Nagar, Lahore, to register a case against the respondents was, therefore, one passed under the exercise of his powers as Rent Controller, Lahore.
6 It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the application made under section 476, Cr.P.C.
By Malik Nasir-ud-Din led to criminal proceedings being conducted by Mr. Zia Ullah Khan Niazi, Civil Judge, under the same section, which were ooram non judice, as he could not have conducted the same in his capacity as a civil judge, as the proceeding out of which the application was filed were those conducted by him as a Rent Controller. I agree that whatever proceedings were taken by Mr. Zia Ullah Khan Niazi on the application filed before him under section 476, Cr.P.C., were taken by him basically as a Rent Controller, as that was the capacity in which he had dealt with the main case under the Rent Restriction Ordinance. However, no proceedings under section 476, Cr.P.C., as such, were conducted by Mr. Zia Ullah Khan Niazi, Rent Controller, on the application filed by Malik Nasir- ud-Din. Actually, what he did was to initiate an inquiry in respect of the overwriting on the signatures of the respondents on the Iqrarnama and, after having found in the inquiry that the documents had been tampered with by the respondents, he ordered Police Station Krishan Nagar to register a case against them. In these circumstances, since no proceedings under section 476, Cr.P.C., as such, were taken by the learned Rent Controller, the question of the same being coram non judice, does not arise. The order of the learned Rent Controller, dated 6th November, 1982 is not, therefore, without lawful authority.
7 This now leaves me with the main question left for determination,namely, whether Mr. Zia Ullah Khan Niazi, Rent Controller, was legally bound to submit a complaint in writing to the District Magistrate or the Ilaqa Magistrate under section 195 (1)(c), Cr.P.C. The Rent Controller is not a "Court". If any authority is required for this view, Azim Ullah v. Syed Shaukat All 1972 P Cr. L J 306 and Khadim Mohy-ud-Din v. Ch. Rehmat All Nagra PLD 1965 SC 459 may be referred. In these circumstances, Mr. Zia Ullah Khan Niazi, Rent Controller, Lahore, was not legally bound to submit a complaint in writing to the Ilaqa Magistrate under section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. The order of the learned Magistrate, dated 20th August, 1983 acquitting the respondents under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. On the ground that he was not competent to take cognizance of the case, as the complaint had not been filed before him by a Court, is illegal.
8. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is accepted and the order of Ch. Sardar Ali Gaursi, Magistrate Section 30, Lahore, dated 20th August, 1983, is set aside. The case is now remanded to the said trial Magistrate so that he may continue with the proceeding from the point at which he last passed the impugned order.