1. The brief facts giving rise to the prosecution of the appellants was that appellant Muhammad Sharif was an A.S.I. While appellant Wali Muhammad was a recovery witness. Muhammad Sharif A.S.I. Investigated a case against one Muhammad Javaid under the provision of Article 4 of Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order VI of 1979, inasmuch as, it was alleged that Muhammad Javaid was selling heroin in Chak No.187-GB, T.T. Singh and accordingly, a raid was conducted and allegedly 20 grams of heroin was recovered from his shirt and eventually after obtaining the report of the Chemical Examiner, the challan was submitted- against Muhammad Javaid to face his trial.
2. During the proceedings in the case while making his statement, A.S.I. Muhammad Sharif stated that they had not recovered heroin from Chak No.187-GB vide recovery memo. Exh.P.B. But they had apprehended Muhammad Javaid from a restaurant at the bus stop and from his possession, heroin was recovered. Similarly, false statement made by Wali Muhammad appellant also came to light.
3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge took a strong notice of this fact and particularly, the torture and agony which Muhammad Javaid had to go through and accordingly, the learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded to try both the appellants under section 228, P.P.C. And found both the appellants guilty and accordingly, each of them was sentenced to undergo S.I. For a term of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000 in default thereof to suffer S.I. For a term 15 days.
4. Aggrieved by their conviction, the appellants have preferred this appeal which shall be disposed of through this judgment.
5. Obviously, the facts of the case do not disclose the commission of offence under section 228, P.P.C.
6. Which reads as under:-- "Whoever intentionally offers any insult or causes any interruption to any public servant, while such public servant is sitting in any stage of judicial proceeding shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both."
7. In fact, the aforesaid section deals with the interruption in the exercise of duties of a judicial officer or with regard to an insult offered to a judicial officer but in this case, no such act was committed and only in judicial proceeding, false statements were made which falls within the definition of section 192, P.P.C. In this view of the matter, the proper course for Additional Sessions Judge was to try either the appellants summarily under section 193, P.P.C. Or to have drawn a complaint and to send the same to a Court of competent jurisdiction to try the appellants.
8. The conviction of the appellants under section 228, P.P.C. Is patently illegal and is not sustainable.
9. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentences of the appellants are set aside.
10. The learned Additional Sessions Judge is directed to proceed against both the appellants in the light of the direction given in the preceding paragraph by this Court.
11. Both the appellants are on bail, they shall be discharged from their bail bonds.
12. N.H.O./M-459/L