' Facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that Abdul Ghafoor respondent filed Criminal Miscellaneous No,486/H of 1992, against the S.H.O. Police Station Saddar Gujranwala and others, for the recovery of Mst. Nasreen, posing her to be his daughter. This petition was, however, withdrawn as the learned counsel wanted to file proper application for the registration of the case against the accused persons. Consequently, Abdul Ghafoor filed Writ Petition No,7062 of 1992, for the registration of the case against the accused, who allegedly abducted Mst. Nasreen. Vide order of this Court, dated 1-81992, S.H.O. Police Station Saddar Gujranwala was directed to register the case and investigate the same in accordance with law. Consequently, a case under sections 10 and 11 of Ordinance VII of 1979 and section 420/467/468/506, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station Saddar Gujranwala. It appears that during the investigation of the above-mentioned case, the police recovered Mst. Nasreen. Abdul Ghafoor yet filed another Criminal Miscellaneous No,524/H of 1992, alleging therein that after the recovery of Mst. Nasreen, the police is detaining her illegally. Under orders of this Court, dated 5-8-1992, a bailiff of this Court recovered Mst. Nasreen and produced her before this Court on 6-8-1992. On that date, statements of Nazir Hussain S.I., Muhammad Saleem Bailiff, Mst. Nasreen and Abdul Ghafoor were recorded. The Police Officer admitted the recovery of Mst. Nasreen, but deposed that after recording her statement under section 161, Cr.P.C., he could not hand her over to her father Abdul Ghafoor, as he was not available. Mst. Nasreen in her statement posed her as the daughter of Abdul Ghafoor respondent. Similarly, Abdul Ghafoor accused-respondent inter alia deposed that his daughter Mst. Nasreen was recovered two days back by the police. On the aforesaid date, it was ordered that the statement of Mst. Nasreen be got recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. And the Police Officer was directed to arrest the accused named in the F.I.R. The case was then adjourned to 16-81992.
' On 16-8-1992, the parties appeared, but Mst. Nasreen appeared with her father Inayat Masih; hence in view of the changed circumstances, the statements of Abdul Ghafoor respondent, Mst.
Nasreen and Nazir Hussain S.I. Were again recorded. Abdul Ghafoor in his statement admitted that he earlier filed Criminal Miscellaneous No,486/H of 1992 and Writ Petition No,7062 of 1992, through Iftikhar Shah, Advocate and that relevant papers bear his thumb-impressions. He admitted that on 6-8-1992, he made statement to the effect that Mst. Nasreen was his daughter. He also admitted that Mst. Nasreen is the real daughter of Inayat Masih son of Khera and that he made false statement. Similarly, Mst. Nasreen admitted that she made incorrect statement before this Court on 6-8-1992, on the instigation and fear of Abdul Ghafoor accused-respondent. Nazir Hussain S.I.
Deposed that he came to know through Muhammad Bashir Gujjar when he was present in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate at Gujranwala that Mst. Nasreen was the real daughter of Inayat Masih and that he brought this fact to the notice of the D.S.P. Circle.
' After recording the statements, as stated above, the S.P. Gujranwala, was directed to depute some Senior Police Officer to make thorough inquiry into the matter and take appropriate legal action against the culprit. At the same time, the Law Officer was directed to consider the desirability of taking action either under section 193, P.P.C. Or. Under the Contempt of Court Act, against those persons who made deliberately false statements before this Court and the case was adjourned to 28-9-1992. On that date as nobody appeared on behalf of Abdul Ghafoor accused-respondent, bailable warrants of arrest were issued against him. On 1040-1992, it transpired that Abdul Ghafoor was in District Jail, Gujranwala, in connection with case F.I.R. No,526/92, dated 19-8-1992, under section 10 of Ordinance VII of 1979 and section 420, P.P.C. He was directed to be produced before this Court on 25-10-1992. On 25-10-1992, it was directed that a show-cause notice be issued to Abdul Ghafoor under section 476, Cr.P.C. Why proceedings should not be taken against him under section 193, P.P.C. For making false statements in this Court in cases Criminal Miscellaneous No,486/H of 1992, Writ Petition No,7062 of 1992 and Criminal Miscellaneous No,524/H of 1992, as is apparent from his statement dated 16-81992, recorded in Criminal Miscellaneous No,524/H of 1992.
The case was adjourned to 15-11-1992. However, the case was fixed before this Court on 1412-1992, but as Abdul Ghafoor accused-respondent was not produced from the jail, it was adjourned to 17- 1-1993. On 17-1-1993, Abdul Ghafoor was produced in police custody. It was directed that Mst.
Nasreen be also summoned, because she also made a false statement before this Court. On 8-2- 1993, Mr. Tariq Shakoor appeared for Mst. Nasreen and sought for adjournment on the ground that Mst. Nasreen has given birth to a child in the hospital on 7-2-1993. The case was adjourned to 30- 3-1993. On 30-3-1993, Abdul Ghafoor accused-respondent admitted the charge. It was however, directed that some Advocate be appointed at State expense, so that before awarding sentence, he should be heard with regard to the quantum of sentence. Learned counsel for Mst. Nasreen sought further adjournment to file reply to the show-cause notice. The case was then adjourned to 14-4- 1993. Again on 14-4-1993, learned counsel for Mst. Nasreen asked for some time. The case was therefore, adjourned to 28-4-1993.
2. Today, I have heard Mr. Nazir Ahmad Ghazi, AA.-G. On behalf of the State, Mr. Dil Muhammad Tarar, Advocate on behalf of Abdul Ghafoor accused-respondent and Tariq Shakoor, Advocate, on behalf of Mst. Nasreen, who has filed reply to the show-cause notice.
3. Abdul Ghafoor accused-respondent has admitted his guilt that he made false statements before this Court and impersonated himself as the father of Mst. Nasreen, although she is the daughter of Inayat Masih. Treating it as a mitigating circumstance, while convicting Abdul Ghafoor accused respondent under sections 205 and 193, P.P.C., I award him sentence of one year's R.I.
Under each count with the direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently. He is also entitled to the benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C.
4. I have gone through the reply to show-cause notice filed on behalf of Mst. Nasreen and have also heard the learned Prosecutor.
' Learned counsel for Mst. Nasreen submitted that she is mentally deranged and was not a free agent when she made statement before this Court. Even otherwise, the alleged false statement was made by her under threat and was not intentional and as such, by accepting her reply, notice may be discharged.
5. Learned Prosecutor has not seriously challenged the defence of Mst. Nasreen.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served by prosecuting Mst. Nasreen under the provisions of sections 193 and 205, P.P.C.; hence the notice issued to her is hereby discharged.