1. ' By this appeal the appellant has challenged judgment, dated 18-2-1998 of learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (South), whereby he convicted and sentenced the appellant under section 228, P.P.C. To undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
2. ' Precisely the facts arising to the filing of this appeal are that on 18-2-1998 the appellant was served with a show-cause notice asking as to why action under section 228, P.P.C. Be not taken against him as he on the above date at 11-00 a.m. Insisted his production in the Court without production order and uttered abusive language and raised hue and cry as such Court work was interrupted and also caused insult to the Court. Thereafter, he was served with the above notice while in lock-up of City Courts and was sent back to Central Prison, and as such he could not submit his reply, therefore, the learned trial Judge without hearing him or any other person on his behalf convicted him as mentioned above.
3. ' I have heard Mr. Raja Sardar Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Lakho, learned counsel for the State at length and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
4. ' It is contended on behalf of the appellant that he has not committed the alleged offence and is innocent. On the said date he had gone while in custody of the police to inquire about the fate of his bail application which was said to have been fixed for orders on the above date in Sessions Case No,594 of 1995. While inquiring the same from the Reader of the Court learned Judge on hearing conversation from his Chamber, got annoyed and issued the said notice. According to him the sentence inflicted upon the appellant by the trial Court is beyond his jurisdiction and is perverse and bad in law and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellant further argues that for taking cognizance under section 228, P.P.C. Procedure provided under section 476 of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred as "Code") is to be followed which has not been done in this case, as such the entire proceedings are illegal. According to section 476 of Code cases .Mentioned in section 195 of Code are to be tried in accordance with the procedure prescribed for summary trials in Chapter XXII of said Code. According to him a limit of imprisonment is prescribed in subsection (2) of section 262 of Code of Chapter (XXII) whereby no sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding three months shall be passed in the case of any conviction under this Chapter, therefore, the sentence passed in this case is beyond jurisdiction. He next argued that in this offence a direct complaint in writing is to be filed by the concerned Court or by some other Court to which such Court is subordinate, which is a basic requirement of section 195 of Code. The same has not been done in this case as such the entire exercise is illegal.
5. ' Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Lakho, learned counsel for the State conceded and raised no objection if the sentence of the appellant is set aside.
6. Admittedly, in this case the conviction and sentence has been passed merely on the show-cause notice which is not permissible in law. When an offence under section 228, P.P.C. Is alleged to have been committed, as is in the present case, a procedure stipulated under section 195 of Code is to be adopted which is mandatory in nature and under its subsection (1)(b) it is mentioned that no Court 'shall take cognizance except on the complaint in writing of such Court or some other Court to which such Court is subordinate. Herein the case in hand, no such complaint has been filed in writing as such the conviction and sentence passed are bad in law. Irrespective of this, the proceedings of this nature are to be conducted summarily in accordance with Chapter XX. The said procedure being mandatory in nature has also not been followed in this case. Moreover, provisions laid down under section 262 of Code have also been ignored and the appellant has been convicted to six months imprisonment which is beyond the limit prescribed thereunder whereby a maximum sentence of three months is to be passed as such the sentence is beyond jurisdiction. The object and the intent of Chapter XXII of Code is to dispose of the matter hurriedly and summarily but it never intended to deprive the persons of any rights provided to them in Chapter XXI and XXII of the Code.
7. ' In the light of the above discussion I am of the considered opinion that the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge has absolutely no jurisdiction to pass the impugned judgment which accordingly is set aside. The appeal is allowed. Appellant is on bail, his bail bond stands cancelled.