The applicants and respondent No,2 have business relations and there is litigation between them in respect of dispute relating to business transarctic. The respondent No,2 filed direct Complaint No,141 of 1996 against the applicants in a Criminal Court in District South, Karachi. After a preliminary inquiry, the V-Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi South, found that there was a dispute between the parties for payment of amount and it was a case of civil nature. He found that no criminal case was made out and, therefore, he dismissed the .Complaint by his order dated 13-6- 1996.
2. The present respondent No,2/complainant filed Criminal Revision No,76 of 1996 against the order of dismissal of his complaint. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the Revision by order dated 26-3-1999, set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Trial Court for passing appropriate orders on the complaint strictly in accordance with law, after giving the complainant reasonable opportunity of hearing.
3. Thereafter, an application was filed before the Additional Sessions Judge on behalf of the applicants under section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. It was asserted before the Additional Sessions Judge that a private direct complaint was barred under this provision of law because the alleged forged documents were submitted for use before the High Court in a civil suit between the parties. The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the plea of the present applicants and admitted the complaint by her order dated 19-1-2001. On admission of the complaint, bailable warrants were ordered to be issued against the present applicants. This order has been called in question by way of the present revision.
4. Mr. Abdul Hafeez Lakho, learned counsel for applicants Nos.1 to 4, submitted that it is undisputed that a civil suit has been filed by the respondent No,2 against the applicants, which is pending in.
High Court, and the alleged forged documents have been submitted in that suit. According to him, therefore, it is the Court, where the suit is pending that can take action for alleged forgery in the documents and a direct complaint is barred under section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. In support of his contention, he relied upon a. Number of rulings of Sindh High Court, but he mainly relied upon the case of State v. S. Ali Hussain and others decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court and reported as PLD 1974 Karachi 403.
5. It was held in that case that even though the documents had been forged before institution of suit, bar contained in section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. Would be operative with equal force if the documents are subsequently used in judicial proceedings. He submitted that the question is still before the High Court in civil suit and it is yet to be determined whether forgery has been committed or not and, therefore, bar under section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. Is attracted. Mr. Lakho submitted that the ruling being of the Sindh High Court, despite having been given by Single Judge, is binding upon the subordinate Courts in Sindh, in presence of a ruling of any other High Court, given by a larger Bench with a contrary view.
6. Mr. Muhammad Anwar Tariq, learned counsel for respondent No,2, relied upon the decision in Muhammad Shafi v. D.S.P. Malik Gul Nawaz, Narowal and others PLD 1992 Lahore 178. This ruling was given by a Full Bench of Lahore High Court and it supports the case of respondent No,
2. It was held in that case that provision of section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. Is to be interpreted with purposive approach and that it contemplates cases of tampering with the documents on the record of a Court or cases of previously forged documents being used as genuine in certain proceedings and applies to only those offences that have a close nexus between the offence and the proceedings.
7. Mr. RazaHashmi adopted the arguments of Mr. Lakho and Mr.Sharafat Ali Khan, appearing on behalf of the State, simply supported the impugned order.
8. Mr. Muhammad Anwar Tariq contended that the alleged forged documents do not relate to the proceeding of the civil suit and the forgery was not committed in the proceedings of the civil suit.
He submitted that this was a Full Court ruling and that shall be applicable in the present case.
9. Thus, the situation is that there is a Single Bench ruling of the Sindh High Court in support of the case of the applicants with regards to the direct complaint before the V-Additional Sessions Judge and there is another Full Bench ruling of the Lahore High Court on the same point, which is in favour of the stand of respondent No,2. The question, therefore, is which of the two rulings is binding on the Sessions Court in this case.
10. The binding effect of a decision of a High Court is on the basis of Article 201 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which reads as under:-- "201. Decision of High Court binding on subordinate Courts.--Subject to Article 189, any decision of a High Court shall, to the extent that it decides a question of law or is based upon or enunciates a principle of law, be binding, on all Courts subordinate to it."
' Interpretation of the words "Courts subordinate to it" decides the question.
11. The ordinary dictionary meanings of "subordinate" are lower in rank or importance etc., or secondary, belonging to an inferior order in classification or having a lower position in recognized scale. Thus, in the broad sense, subordinate means a lower status. The meanings, in which these words have been used in this Article, may be determined by considering the ,sense in which the same words have been used in the next two Articles. Articles 202 and 203 are as under:-- "202. Rules of procedure.--Subject to the Constitution and law, a High Court may make rules regarding the practice and procedure of the Court or of any Court subordinate to it.
203. High Court to superintend subordinate Courts.--Each High Court shall supervise and control all Courts subordinate to it."
12. Article 202 of the Constitution authorizes a High Court to make rules to regulate practice and procedure of that Court or any other Court subordinate to it. Article 203 empowers a High Court to supervise and control all Courts subordinate to it. Article 175 of the Constitution provides for a High Court for each Province. It is, therefore, clear that the High Court of a Province is the Court that is empowered to make rules and to supervise the subordinate Courts in that Province. The High Court of a Province cannot supervise and control, and cannot make rules for, the subordinate Courts in another Province. The intention of the Constitution-makers is clear that the "Courts subordinate to it" mentioned in these Articles, refer to the subordinate Courts in the same Province. The same words used in Article 201 will also have the same meaning. It is, therefore, clear that the decisions of a High Court are binding on all Courts subordinate to it in the same Province.
13. The next question is about the binding effect of a decision of the High Courts on the basis of number of Judges in the Benches making the decision.
14. The Constitution envisages a High Court as one Court, as can be seen from Articles 175 and 192.
Article 175 provides for "a High Court for each Province" and Article 192 states that "a High Court shall consist of a Chief Justice and so many other Judges as may be determined by law...." The Constitution envisages a High Court as one Court and does not recognize individual Benches of a High Court at one Seat. The Bench of a High Court, recognized by the Constitution, is within the meanings of a Seat of the Court other than Principal Seat, as is evident from Article 198. Thus, according to the Constitution, a High Court may have a Bench at a place other than the Principal Seat. Article 200 also refers to a Bench of a High Court as a seat other than the Principal Seat.
15. Of course, a High Court is authorized under the Constitution to make rules to regulate its practice and procedure and, under such rules, Benches may be formed at one Seat, but the concept of various degrees of strength of decisions of such Benches, as to their binding effect, depending upon the number of Judges in a Bench, would be in conflict with the Constitutional concept of a High Court being one Court. A decision of a Bench of a High Court, irrespective of the number of Judges in the Bench, is a decision of the High Court for all purposes.
16. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the ruling of the Sindh High Court was binding on the Additional Sessions Judge in Sindh and the impugned order, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, is in conflict with that ruling. The revision is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The direct complaint stands dismissed.