' MUHAMMAD ASLAM ARAIN, J.--- In this Constitutional petition, the prayer of petitioner Miss Rukhsana Saleem is--
(a) to call the R&P of the Criminal Revision No,42 of 1989 from the Court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge (East), Karachi, as well as R&P of Criminal Case No,208 of 1987 from the Court of VIIIth Additional City Magistrate (East) to consider the pleas of the petitioner;
(b) to set aside and vacate the impugned order at Annexure 'A' to the petition as well as the order dated Nil passed by VIII A.C.M. (East), Karachi on petitioner's application moved before him under section 476/195 of Cr.P.C. Dated 22-6-1989;
(c) to direct the VIIIth Additional City Magistrate (East), Karachi to dispose of petitioner's said application moved under section 476/195, Cr.P.C. On merits.
2. The facts forming background of this petition are that on 26-11-1986, an application signed by the respondents Nos.1 to 15 was moved before S.H.O., Police Station Malir, in which it was alleged that the petitioner was residing as a tenant on 1st Floor of House No,C-103/6, where people of unwanted kind visited her off and on and the petitioner was seen going out and returning with such people. It was also alleged that the visitors often stayed with her for the night. It was further alleged that the mother and brother of the petitioner were residing with her and they have no obstensible means of livelihood. There was prayer that the petitioner be shifted from the said house to avoid nuisance created by her and to save other ladies of the Mohallah from bad effects.
3. This application was endorsed by S.H.O. To S.I. Niaz Muhammad for action and report. Since the allegations constituted an offence under section 290 of P.P.C. Which was a non-cognizable offence, S.I. Niaz Muhammad obtained permission under section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. From the Magistrate having jurisdiction and conducted enquiry. He recorded statements of 15 witnesses and submitted his report dated 7-12-1986 to Illaqa Magistrate of Police Station Malir.
4. Formal charge as required under section 242 of Cr.P.C. Was framed against the petitioner under section 290 of P.P.C. By A.C.M. VIII, Karachi (East) on 4-5-1988, to which she pleased not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The learned trial Court examined P.W. Jamil Exh.3 who produced original application moved by Mohallah people Exh.3/A, Nafis Ahmad Exh.4, Abdul Rab Exh.5, Muhammad Rashid Exh.6, Rais Ahmed Exh.7, Abdul Qadir Exh.8, Shamsuddin Exh.9 and Shamshad Hassan Exh.10.
6. The petitioner moved an application under section 249-A of Cr.P.C. On 29-3-1988 for her acquittal on the ground that the witnesses examined did not involve her in any manner. By a detailed order dated 16-2-1989, petitioner was acquitted under section 249-A of Cr.P.C. After her acquittal by the trial Court, the petitioner filed an application under sections 476, 195 of Cr.P.C. Read with sections 193, 196, 182 and 211 read with sections 34 and 109 of P.P.C. Praying that since the respondents Nos.1 to 16 had committed perjury during her trial, they be tried and punished in accordance with law to secure the ends of justice. On this application, the learned A.C.M. VIII, Karachi (East) passed the following order:- "Accused shown at S. No,16 Niaz Muhammad is a Government servant. Jurisdiction to try cases against Government servants lies with S.D.M. Vide Order No,JB(E) Rdr. 1375 dated 21-6-1988, from the District Magistrate, Karachi (East). This complaint may therefore be produced before S.D.M., Malir."
7. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the order of A.C.M. Dated 22-6-1989 filed Cr. Revision No,42/1989 before IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge (East), Karachi with prayer to declare the order dated 22-6-1989 as illegal and to remand her application dated 22-6-1989 for disposal on merits.
The Cr. Revision was disposed of by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge (East), Karachi in the following words:-- "On the perusal of the contents of complaint Annexure 'A' to the Revision Application I find that the applicant had levelled allegations against respondent No,16 who is working as S.I.P. At Malir Police Station. Vide Circular/office order dated 21-6-1988 on creation of new Sub-Division the D.M. Had assigned to the respective S.D.M. Since there is serious allegation against the police official of Police Station Malir, the jurisdiction of such cases lies with S.D.M. Hence the order passed by the trial Court is proper. In the result, this revision application is dismissed."
' Hence this Constitution petition.
8. We have heard Mr. Hameed Ahmed Ayaz, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. A. G. Mangi, Addl.
A.-G. The Private Respondents Nos.1 to 15 are absent. Respondent No,16 is posted S.I.P. At Malir Police Station and he is also represented by the learned Addl. Advocate-General.
' The main contention of the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner is that after acquittal of the petitioner under section 249-A of Cr.P.C. By A.C.M. VIII, Karachi, her application for taking action against the respondents moved under section 476 of Cr.P.C. Should have been allowed and the learned Magistrate should have tried and punished respondents Nos.1 to 16, who had perjured during trial by stating facts against the petitioner which were false to their knowledge and belief.
According to him, the application moved by the respondents Nos.1 to 15 before S.H.O. Malir contained facts which were false and baseless and were proved as such before the trial Court, who ordered petitioner's acquittal. In these circumstances according to him, the trial Court was competent under section 476 of Cr.P.C. To take cognizance itself and try the respondents Nos.1 to 16 in a summary manner under Chapter XXII of Cr.P.C. It is further contended that the learned Magistrate had fallen into an error while disposing of petitioner's application under section 476 of Cr.P.C. By observing that the respondent No,16 Niaz Muhammad was Government servant and complaint against him may be filed before S.D.M. Malir. It is also contended that the said respondent who was S.I.P, had investigated into the application moved by the Mohallah people and in collaboration with them, he had filed false report before the Magistrate for taking action and that in these circumstances case of S.I.P. Niaz Muhammad (respondent No,16) was not covered by the circular dated 21-6-1988 issued by District Magistrate (East), Karachi.
' It is lastly contended that while deciding Cr. Revision Application filed by the petitioner against the order of A.C.M. VIII, the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge (East), Karachi committed error by maintaining the order of the trial Court, holding that the case against the respondent No,16 Niaz Muhammad was triable by S.D.M. Who had been assigned jurisdiction to hear cases against public servants.
' Mr. A.G. Mangi, learned AA.-G. Has supported the two orders, one passed by A.C.M. VIII, Karachi and the other by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge (East), Karachi. It has been contended that from the facts of the case, no offence either under section 182 or 211, P.P.C. Was made out and action under section 476 of Cr.P.C. Was unwarranted.
9. The petitioner sought action under section 476 of Cr.P.C. Against the respondents Nos.1 to 15 who had signed application dated 26-11-1986 and against respondent No,16 S.I.P. Niaz Muhammad who had investigated into the allegations made in the application and had submitted report to the Illaqa Magistrate. It is surprising to note that all the respondents who had signed the application were not examined during trial as evidence of respondents Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 alone was recorded, but in her application for proceeding under section 476, Cr.P.C., the petitioner sought action even against the respondents who never appeared in Court or deposed anything against the petitioner. We have perused the evidence and find that such of the respondents who were examined before the trial Court, did not allege anything against the petitioner regarding her character. All that was said by the witnesses was that so many persons were coming in the cars and were parking their vehicles near the petitioner's house and that on some occasions, she was seen moving about with those persons. The charge under section 290 of Cr.P.C. Was not established through the evidence of the respondents who were examined and the learned Magistrate was therefore, justified in acquitting the petitioner under section 249-A of Cr.P.C.
10. The defence lawyer appearing for the petitioner before the trial Court, did not even confront the respondents who were examined with their alleged signatures on the application nor any question was put with regard to contents of said application. The respondent No,16 who as S.I.P. Had recorded statements of the persons who had signed the application and submitted report, cannot be said to have collaborated with such respondents in getting a case sent up against the petitioner in Court. Neither any offence under section 182 nor under section 211, P.P.C. Seemed to have been committed by the respondents nor any offence under sections 193, 196 and 500 read with sections 34 and 109, P.P.C. Was committed. The request of the petitioner for proceeding against the respondents under section 476 of Cr.P.C. Was rightly turned down.
11. It may also be stated that application of the petitioner for proceeding under section 476 of Cr.P.C. Was not decided by the learned Magistrate on merits nor her Revision Application was disposed of on merits. All that has been stated by the two Courts below is that the jurisdiction to try one of the respondents who was a Government servant lay with S.D.M. On merits too we find no justification to enter into the factual controversy about grievance of the petitioner, while exercising Constitutional jurisdiction.
12. We see no merits in this petition and dismiss the same. These are the reasons for our short order dated 18-8-1992 in identical terms.