Facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that appellant Fayyaz Ahmad was tried by Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore for an offence under section 193, P.P.C. The trial Court vide its judgment dated 3-3-1958 sentenced him to 3 years' R.I. And fine of Rs.1,000 or in default R.I. For 6 months. The convict appealed. This judgment shall dispose of the same.
2. Allegations in brief against the appellant were that one Nazir Ahmad was under-trial prisoner in a case bearing F.I.R. No.504 dated 10-12-1985 registered under section 302, P.P.C. An application for bail on behalf of the said under-trial prisoner was moved on 15-4-1986 on the ground that his mother died on 15-4-1986 at 4 a.m. The application was accompanied by a sworn affidavit of Fayyaz Ahmad appellant. It was also stated in the said affidavit that he was brother-in-law of said Nazir Ahmad. The Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore while relying upon the affidavit allowed interim bail to the under-trial prisoner on 15th April, 1956. Said Nazir Ahmad failed to appear before the Court on 23rd April, 19136. A number of adjournments were granted. Thereafter his bail bonds were cancelled and notice to the surety was issued. Ultimately said Nazir Ahmad was produced before the trial Court by Police. On inquiry by the Court he informed that his mother Mst. Sakina Bibi was alive and he had never instructed any one to file application for bail on his behalf. He further asserted that Fayyaz Ahmad was neither his brother-in-law nor known to him. Thereafter the learned Court issued show-cause notice to Fayyaz Ahmad appellant as to why he should not be proceeded against for filing false affidavit.
3. Trial was conducted by Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore wherein statements of .3 prosecution witnesses were recorded. Abdul Haq P.W.1 deposed that affidavit Exh.P.A. Was attested by hick on 15-4-1986. He further stated that it was presented by Fayyaz Ahmad appellant who had also shown his identity card and signed in front of him. Nazir Ahmad P.W.2 stated that he was under-trial prisoner in a murder case and was released on interim bail. He asserted that he never engaged any counsel nor asked anyone to file an application for bail on his behalf. He further stated that his mother was alive. He also asserted that he did not know the appellant. Syed Noor-ul-Hassan Rizvi, Advocate P.W.3 deposed that he had filed an application for bail Exh. P.B. On the asking of Fayyaz Ahmad appellant. At that time the appellant had also given him his affidavit Exh.P.A. He had also told him that he was brother-in-law of the under-trial prisoner.
At the conclusion of the prosecution evidence the appellant was examined without oath. He refuted prosecution evidence and pleaded innocence. When asked why witnesses had deposed against him he simply stated that he could not say anything.
3. It was contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant could not be convicted on the basis of an affidavit, which was not admissible in evidence. Submits that the occurrence had taken place in the year 1986 and the appellant was convicted in 1988 and in such circumstances sending him behind the bars to serve the remaining portion of the sentence might be too harsh. Submits that the appellant is the only bread-winner of his family if sent behind the bars his entire family would suffer an irreparable loss, and would be reduced to starvation.
Volunteered that sentence of fine may be increased to meet ends of justice while the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to the period already undergone. The contention was opposed by learned counsel for the State.
4. I have heard the learned counsel and gone through the evidence. The evidence produced is convincing and can safely be relied upon. Nothing was suggested to the witnesses or argued at the Bar that any of the witnesses had some motive for the false involvement of the appellant. I have noticed that even the beneficiary i.e. The person who was released on bail categorically stated that his mother was alive and he had never asked the appellant for filing bail application on his behalf. The case against the appellant stands proved beyond any doubt. The last contention of the appellant, however, needs consideration. I issued a notice to the appellant to show-cause as to why the sentence of fine be not increased. Learned counsel for the appellant duly accepted the notice and argued that the sentence of fine may be increased to Rs.5,000, The appellant had obtained an order from the Court by moving an application on the grounds which were absolutely false. He had sworn affidavit knowing it to be false. He does not deserve any leniency. Since learned counsel for the appellant has stated at the Bar that he is the only bread-winner of the family, therefore, on compassionate ground I reduce the sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone by him. The sentence of fine Rs.1,000 is however, increased to Rs.15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand) or in default he shall and go imprisonment for 4X months. The appeal is dismissed in these terms.