This order will dispose of Criminal Revision No. 152 of 1985 and Criminal Revision No. 206 of 1985.
2. The facts giving rise to these petitions are that Security proceedings under section 107/151, Cr.P.C.
Were pending between Abdul Aziz petitioner and Nisar Ahmad on one side and Muhammad Ashraf etc. On the other side in the Court of Muhammad Aslam Arshad M.I.C., Toba Tek Singh. On 27-6- 1984 one Muhammad Tahir petitioner allegedly impersonated as Nisar Ahmad before the aforementioned Court on which the said Court ordered the registration of case against Abdul Aziz and Muhammad Tahir. Consequently, the police registered, a case under sections 419 and 420, P.P.C. After completion of investigation the police submitted the challan against them. The case came up before Mr. Amir Ali, M.I.C. , Toba Tek Singh who, vide his order, dated 12-11-1984 convicted Muhammad Tahir petitioner under section 205, P.P.C., and sentenced him to three months' R.I. Plus a fine of Rs.500 or in default to further undergo one month's R.I. Abdul Aziz petitioner was convicted and sentenced under section 205/ 109, P.P.C. And was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 or in default to undergo three months' S.I.
3. Feeling aggrieved Abdul Aziz petitioner filed an appeal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh by his judgment, dated 7-3-1985 reduced the fine of Rs.1,000 to Rs.500 of Abdul Aziz petitioner. Hence this revision. However, the appeal filed by Muhammad Tahir was dismissed in toto by the order, dated 7-3-1985. He has come up in revision to this Court.
4. A legal objection has been raised about the submission of challan against the petitioners under section 420/205, P.P.C. And preparing of charge against them under sections 420 and 205, P.P.C.
5. It is stated that the offence under section 205, P.P.C. Is non-cognizable and under section 195, Cr.P.C., when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, in any Court no Court shall take cognizance except on the complaint in writing of such Court or of some other Court to which that court is subordinate. It is stated that there was no written complaint by the Court but the case was got registered against the petitioner at the instance of Muhammad Ashraf one of the accused respondent in the proceedings under sections 107, 151, Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that under section 476, Cr.P.C., only the Court concerned could have taken cognizance of the offence and tried the same but in this case another Court had taken cognizance on a police report instead of report in writing by the Court concerned. Reliance has been placed on Rahim Bakhsh and another v. The State PLD 1983 Lah. 397. Learned counsel for the complainant has not been able to rebut this legal proposition. Accordingly, I accept the petition, set aside the conviction and sentence of the petitioners and acquit them of the charges. The fine if paid by them shall be refunded to them.