' IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.---Criminal Appeals Nos.6 and 7 of 2001 have been instituted under section 476(4)(a), Criminal Procedure Code to assail the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated January 5, 2001, in pursuance whereof appellants were convicted/sentenced respectively as under:-- ' CRIMINAL APPEAL N0,6 OF 2001 (Dr. Muhammad Afzal, Medical Officer): ' Under section 192, P.P.C. To 5 years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,20,000 and in default to six months' S.I.
Rs,10,000 shall be paid out of the fine if recovered to. Nadeem Iqbal detenu. He was also convicted/sentenced under section 197, P.P.C. (wrongly written in the judgment as section 197, Cr.P.C.) to 5 years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,20,000 and in default in payment of fine to further undergo six months' S.I. Out of the fine if recovered Rs,10,000 was ordered to be paid to Nadeem Iqbal, detenu.
' Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
' CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.7 OF 2001 (Dr. Nadeem Afzal Ashrafi, Deputy Medico-Legal Surgeon): ' Under section 197, P.P.C. To undergo 5 years' R.I. With a fine of Rs,20,000 and in default in payment of fine to undergo six months' S.I. Out of the fine Rs,10,000 if recovered was ordered to be paid to Nadeem Iqbal detenu.
2. Facts of the case as revealed from perusal of record are that during proceedings of Habeas Corpus Petition No,2003-H of 2000 instituted under section 491, Cr.P.C. By one Mushtaq Hussain son of Ghulam Muhammad in Lahore High Court challenging illegal detention of his nephew Nadeem Iqbal by Rai Munk Alrmad, A.S.I., Police Station Sambrial, District Sialkot with effect from 9th December, 2000, it was alleged that detenu was subjected to physical torture by the Police. As physical torture was alleged against the police, therefore, detenu was ordered to be produced before the Deputy Medico Legal Surgeon, Punjab for his medical examination. Appellant Dr. Muhammad Afzal being Medical Officer examined the detenu vide M.L.C. Dated 13-12-2000 duly verified by appellant Dr. Nadeem Afzal Ashrafi who designated himself to be the Surgeon Medico Legal, Punjab whereas his designation was Deputy Surgeon Medico Legal. As per contents of certificate no physical violence marks were seen on body of Nadeem Iqbal detenu at the time of his examination. On production of M.L.C. It was alleged by the detenu that he had not been medically examined because his clothes were not removed to ascertain whether there were marks of violence on his body or not. On such complaint of detenu learned Judge ordered to bailiff to produce the detenu before the Medical Superintendent, Mayo Hospital, Lahore with direction to latter to constitute Medical Board to again examine Nadeem Iqbal and to submit report. On 14th December, 2000 report of Special Medical Board comprising of the following was produced:-- ' "Dr. Sadaqat Ali Khan -- Associate Professor of Surgery.
' Dr. Abdul Hameed Rana -- Additional Medical Superintendent.
' Dr. Saeed Ahmad Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology Department, K.E.M.
College, Lahore.
' Dr. Muhammad Naeem -- Assistant Professor Neurology.
' The report revealed following injuries on the person of detenu:-- "(1) Bruise reddish blue in colour present on front of left thigh 24 c.m. Above left knee measuring 5 x 9 c.m.
(2) Bruise reddish blue in colour measuring 4.5 c.m. x 11 c.m. Present on the front left thigh lower part 9 c.m. Above the left knee.
(3) Bruise 4.5 x 8 c.m. Reddish blue in colour present on the front of outer aspect of right Thigh 24 c.m. Above right knee.
(4) Bruise reddish blue in colour measuring 5.5 x 13 c.m. Present on the left buttock extending to upper back left thigh.
OPINION: ' The injuries Nos.1--5 described above are caused by blunt means and are of variable duration ranging from 2--5 days and fall under section 337-L (ii) of Qisas and Diyat Law."
' Thus above Medical Report negated the earlier report prepared/verified respectively by appellants. Therefore, appellants were summoned in Court for December 15, 2000.
3. The appellants submitted their replies on 15th December, 2000 denying fabrication of M.L.C.
Dated 13-12-2000. As such in view of contradiction in the reports on December 18, 2000 a Special Medical Board was got constituted through Provincial Health Department for re-examination of Nadeem Iqbal detenu once again from the doctors of known integrity and skill in their profession. In response to the directions of the Court Health Department constituted another Medical Board who submitted following Report in the Court on 20th December, 2000:-- ' "INJURIES:
(1) A faint contusion brownish in colour with linear soabbed abrasion in an area 16 x 18 c.m., situated on lower part of front of left thigh just above the knee-joint.
(2) A faint contusion brownish in colour in an area 12 x 13 c.m. On right lower front of thigh just above the knee-joint.
(3) A faint contusion yellowish in colour in an area 20 x 30 c.m. On the outer aspect of left buttock.
(4) A faint contusion bluish brown in colour in an area 7 x 11 c.m. On the centre of right buttock.
' COMMENT: ' "Injuries stated above are caused by blunt means. The exact time between infliction of injuries and examination on the basis of colour change is only a rough estimate being influenced by a large number of factors, however, the approximate range falls within 7--14 days."
4. The above reports of Medical Boards persuaded the learned Judge to issue notices to appellants to explain as to why they should not be proceeded against under sections 192, 193, 201, 219, 466/109, P.P.C. On 21st December, 2000 copies of M.L.Rs, of both the Boards alongwith statements of detenu Nadeem Iqbal were delivered to the appellants with the direction that on the next date of hearing charge will be framed and evidence will be recorded in the case.
4-A. Accordingly on 2nd January, 2000 appellants were indicted as under:-- ' "I, Kh. Muhammad Sharif, Judge, Lahore High Court, Lahore, hereby charge you (1) Dr. Muhammad Afzal, Medical Officer office of the Medico Legal Surgon, Punjab. (2) Dr. Nadeem Afzal Ashrafi, Deputy Medico Legal Surgeon, Punjab, Lahore as under:-- ' That in pursuance of this Court's order in Criminal Miscellaneous No,2003-H of 2000 dated 13-12- 2000, bailiff of this Court produced detenu Nadeem Iqbal son of Muhammad Iqbal before you for his medical examination. According to Medico Legal Report issued by you there was no recent mark of physical violence seen on body of the detenu, which in fact was incorrect. Whereupon, a Special Medical Board, Mayo Hospital, Lahore examined the detenu Nadeem Iqbal on 14-12-2000 and five blunt weapon injuries were found on the person of the detenu and thereafter, on 19-12- 2000 reexamination of the detenu was also held by another Special Medical Board, who verified the report dated 14-12-2000.
' From the perusal of these two reports and report issued by you it appears that: ' Firstly, that both of you on 13-12-2000 at 10-27 a.m. Prima facie fabricated a false entry in the M.L.R.
Of the detenu Nadeem Iqbal and thus, made a document containing a false statement which may appear in evidence in a judicial proceedings and you by this act have committed an offence under section 192, P.P.C. Punishable under section 193, P.P.C. Within the cognizance of High Court.
' Secondly, that both of you on same day and time signed and issued a false Medico Legal certificate which by law is admissible in evidence, knowing or believing that such certificate is false and you by this act committed an offence under section 197, P.P.C. Punishable under section 193, P.P.C. Within the cognizance of this Court.
' Thirdly, that both of you being public servants, during judicial proceedings maliciously made a report which you knew to be contrary to law and you by this act have committed an offence punishable under section 219, P.P.C. Within the cognizance of this Court.
' Fourthly, that both being public servants, committed forgery of record of public register i.e, M.L.R.
Register kept by you in your ,official capacity and thereby committed an offence under section 466, P.P.C. And within the cognizance of this Court in the exercise of its original criminal jurisdiction and I hereby direct that you both be tried by this Court on the said charges."
5. As appellants did not plead guilty, therefore, learned Court recorded statements of P.W.1 Nadeem Iqbal, P.W.2 Dr. Sadaqat Ali Khan, Associate Professor of Surgery, P.W.3 Dr. Muhammad Athar, Chief Chemical Examiner (Retd.), Government of Punjab, Lahore, P.W. 4 Tanvir Rehmat Awan, Bailiff Lahore High Court, Lahore. Statements of appellants under section 342, Cr.P.C. Were also recorded wherein they pleaded innocence. In defence two witnesses Dr. Muhammad Ashraf and Dr. Muhammad Akram were examined and documents tendered in defence by both the appellants were also received.
' On completion of trial vide impugned judgment appellants were found guilty thus were convicted and sentenced, details whereof have been mentioned hereinabove. As such instant appeals have been filed.
6. Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Satti and Mian Sadiq Ikram, Advocates appeared for appellants and Ch. Muhammad Akram, Advocate represented the State.
7. Learned counsel for appellants contended that learned High Court though had jurisdiction to try the appellants for offence of Pakistan Penal Code but it had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence directly, therefore, conviction/sentence awarded to them is not sustainable. According to them in view of the situation which has developed during the hearing of habeas corpus petition it would have been appropriate if the learned Judge had directed the police to register a case against the appellants and submit challan under section 173, Cr.P.C. Before the competent Court of jurisdiction for their trial under the relevant provision of law as an ordinary criminal case.
8. Learned State Counsel argued that section 194, Cr.P.C. Empowers the High Court to take cognizance of offence in a prescribed manner notwithstanding the fact whether the offence committed by an accused is triable by a Magistrate or the Sessions Judge as per Schedule II of the Criminal Procedure Code.
9. Learned counsel for the parties conceded that as per mandate of section 28, Cr.P.C., the High Court and the Court of Session have concurrent jurisdiction alongwith subordinate Courts to try the offences under the Pakistan Penal Code subject to compliance of section 190(3), Cr.P.C. Relating to procedure of taking cognizance of offence. Reference in this behalf was made by them to the case of Nabi Dad v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 1000. Admittedly section 190(3), Cr.P.C. Prescribes mode of transmitting criminal cases by a Magistrate to a Court having jurisdiction to try the case as per Column 8 of Schedule II of Cr.P.C. Without recording evidence after taking cognizance under subsection (1) of section 190, Cr.P.C. For trial. A perusal of Column 8 of the Schedule II, Cr.P.C.
Indicates that High Court has not been mentioned to be one of the Courts competent to try the offences of Pakistan Penal Code. As per this column either the offences are triable by the Court of Session or by a Magistrate. Whereas section 194, Cr.P.C. Authorises the High Court to take cognizance of offence. It would mean that notwithstanding the fact that in Column 8 of Schedule II, Cr.P.C. High Court is not mentioned, but under section 194, Cr.P.C. High Court after taking cognizance of the offence under P.P.0 A would be competent to try offence as per section 28, Cr.P.C.
10. Now question is that what would be mode of taking cognizance of the offence by High Court to- try the offenders. Reference in this behalf has to be made to section 194, Cr.P.C. As per its history originally it as in the following form:-- "194(1).--The High Court may take cognizance of any offence upon a commitment made to it in manner hereinafter provided: ' Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to affect the provisions of any letters patent granted under the Indian High Courts Act, 1861, or the Government of India Act, 1915, or the Government of India Act, 1935, or any other provision of this Code.
(2)(a)-- Notwithstanding anything in this Code contained, the Advocate-General may, with the previous sanction of the Provincial Government, exhibit to the High Court against persons subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court, informations for all purposes for which her Majesty's Attorney- General may exhibit informations on behalf of the Crown in the High Court of Justice in England.
(b) Such proceedings may be taken upon every such information as may lawfully be taken in the case of similar informations filed by Her Majesty's Attorney-General so far as the circumstances of the case and the practice and procedure of the said High Court will admit.
(c) All fines, penalties, forfeitures, debts and sums of money recovered or levied under or by virtue of any such information shall form part of the revenues of the Province.
(d) The High Court may make rules for carrying into effect the provisions of this section."
' On promulgation of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 the words appearing in subsection (1) "upon a commitment made to it" were omitted. Later on aforementioned subsection (2) was also omitted under section 4, Schedule II of the Federal Laws (Revision and Declaration) Ordinance, 1981 (Ordinance XXVII of 1981). Thus presently subsection (1) of section 194, Cr.P.C. Exists in the following form:-- "194.--(1) The High Court may take cognizance of any offence in manner hereinafter provided.
' [Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to affect the provisions of any Letters Patent or Order by which a High Court is constituted or continued, or any other provision of this Code]."
It is true that prior to the amendment of subsection (1) of section 194, Cr.P.C. As it has been indicated hereinabove the High Court had no jurisdiction to directly take cognizance of the offence except upon a commitment made to it in the manner provided thereafter but after amendment of subsection (1) of section 194, Cr.P.C. Jurisdiction has been conferred upon the High Court to take cognizance of any offence directly. At this stage it is to be observed that trial of an offence by High Court is interlinked with taking cognizance of any offence and if High Court had no jurisdiction to take the cognizance of the offence directly it also had no jurisdiction to try the offence unless a case is transferred to it under section 526, Cr.P.C. As it has been held in Harish Chandra v. Kavindra Narain Sinha and others AIR 1936 Allahabad 830. Relevant para. Therefrom is reproduced hereinbelow:-- ' "We therefore think that if the cases were committed to the High Court under section 194(1), Cr.P.C.
Or proceedings were started on an application of the Advocate-General under section 194(2) or were transferred to it under section 526, Cr.P.C. Then the High Court would have jurisdiction to try the accused; but that it would not have jurisdiction to try the accused merely on an application made under section 85, Companies Act. The answer to the second question referred to us is therefore in the negative."
' Under section 194(1), Cr.P.C. The expression used "in the manner hereinafter provided" indicates that some procedure has been prescribed under the Code after this section for taking cognizance of offence by the High Court. Section 195, Cr.P.C. Provides procedure for taking cognizance of the offence in following categories of cases by the Courts other than the High Court:--
(i) Contempt of lawful authority of public servants.
(ii) Prosecution for certain offence against public justice.
(iii) Prosecution of certain offences relating to documents given in evidence.
' But it seems that the offences for which the appellants have been charged in the instant case are not covered under any of the above categories, therefore, procedure of taking cognizance of such offence is not to be followed by the High Court. So far section 196, Cr.P.C. Onwards are concerned they had nothing to do with regard to taking cognizance of offence. Except section 265-B, Chapter XXII-A, Cr.P.C. Which lays down the procedure which is to be followed by the High Court at the trial of the case. Thus, we are of the opinion that High Court can take cognizance of offence of Pakistan Penal Code under section 194, Cr.P.C. In the same manner as cognizance is taken under section 190(1)(c), Cr.P.C. By a Magistrate namely upon an information received from any person other than a police officer or upon his own knowledge or suspicion that such offence has been committed.
11. The conclusion drawn hereinabove gives rise to another important question namely that in which category of cases cognizance of the offence will be taken directly by the High Court because under Criminal Procedure Code some of the offences are triable exclusively or concurrently by the Magistrate or Sessions Judge as per contents of Column 8 of Schedule II to Cr.P.C. In addition to it generally cases are triable as per the contents of Schedule II of Cr.P.C. By the Courts within whose local limits/jurisdiction offence is committed. In this behalf reference to section 157, Cr.P.C. May be made which lays down procedure of investigation by the officer incharge of a police station in whose jurisdiction a cognizable offence is suspected to have been committed. This section when examined alongwith the provisions of section 177, Cr.P.C., it becomes manifestly clear that after registration and completion of investigation by a police officer its challan has to be submitted before a Court within whose local limits the crime has been committed. As far as section 190(1), Cr.P.C. Is concerned as per its mandate the Magistrate, on taking cognizance of the offence in the manner provided therein, will commence the trial of the case if it is triable by the same Court and in case it is triable by a Court of Session it shall be sent to the said Court. However, under this provision case will not be transmitted to High Court unless same is transferred to it under section 526, Cr.P.C. It may be noted that the Magistrate taking cognizance of offence will decide the forum competent to try the offence as per provision of Schedule II to Cr.P.C. No departure from this procedure ordinarily is possible. However, in special circumstances when an offence falling within the scope of Pakistan Penal Code is committed during the judicial proceedings pending before the High Court then there would be no bar on it to take cognizance under section 194, Cr.P.C. Directly and proceed to try accused under Chapter XXII-A, Cr.P.C. At the same time High Court, instead of trying the accused for commission of the offence committed during pendency of judicial proceedings, itself may send it to the concerned investigating agency having jurisdiction for further action according to law. As in the present case during pendency of habeas corpus petition allegedly fabricated medical certificate was produced before the Court who, instead of believing or disbelieving it, referred the detenu to confirm as to whether he had been really physically tortured during his custody with the police as complained by him or net. Accordingly a Medical Board comprising of senior doctors vide their report dated 14th December, 2000 confirmed that detenu had injuries on his person. Such medical report negated the medical certificate prepared and verified by appellants respectively dated 13th December, 2000. Learned Judge to further satisfy himself got constituted a second Medical Board by issuing direction to the Health Secretary, who filed its report dated 20th December, 2000 which concurred with the report of first Medical Board dated 14th December, 2000. Thus, on basis of such material learned Judge had gained sufficient knowledge to prima facie conclude that a cognizable offence had been committed during pendency of judicial proceedings before it. Thus, in suchlike situations when documentary evidence was available on record the learned Judge in Chambers of High Court rightly decided to proceed with the matter under section 194, Cr.P.C. By directly taking cognizance of the offence.
' As far as judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants in the case of Nabi Dad v.
The State 1990 PCr.LJ 1000 is concerned it is overruled because we have held that the High Court has jurisdiction to directly take cognizance of offence under Pakistan Penal Code for which detailed reasons have been given hereinabove.
12. Now adverting towards the merits of the case it is to be mentioned that learned Judge mainly had based his findings on the documentary evidence namely Medical Report dated 13-12-2000 Exh.P.A./1 signed by both the appellants, report of First Medical Board Exh.P.B. And P.B./1 prepared by the doctors namely Sadaqat Ali Khan and others as well as report of Second Medical Board constituted by Additional Secretary Health under the directions of the Court Exhs.P.C. And P.C./1. The documentary evidence i.e, the Medical Reports Exhs.P.B., P.B./1 and P.C. And P.C./1 are in conformity to the statement of P.W.1 Nadeem Iqbal. It is important to note that in respect of report of First Medical Board Exhs.P.B. And P.B./1 appellants expressed their reservations because they stated before the Court that the Board constituted by Medical Superintendent Mayo Hospital, Lahore even did not know ABC of Medico Legal cases, therefore, in order to remove any doubt in this behalf Second Medical Board was constituted who submitted report Exhs.P.C. And P.C./1 through the Health Department of Government of Punjab which supported the report of First Medical Board Exhs.P.B. And P.B./1.
13. Learned counsel for appellants Mr. Muhammad Ibrahim Satti argued that the possibility of self- inflicted injuries by P.W.1 Nadeem Iqbal on his person cannot be overruled because it has come on record during his cross-examination that even in past he had been doing so to falsely involve others. In this behalf he referred to his statement where in cross-examination on behalf of appellant Dr. Nadeem Afzal Ashrafi he deposed that the healed wounds on his wrist were inflicted by himself when he was studying in the school about 2/3 years ago. But in our opinion for this reason alone it cannot be presumed that in instant case as well P.W.1 Nadeem Iqbal had repeated the same practice because the appellants in the Medical Report Exh.P/1 had not stated that injuries on the person of the witness were self-inflicted. Whereas on the other hand reports prepared by duly constituted Medical Boards Exhs.P.B. And P.C. Have also proved that injuries on the person of P.W. Nadeem Iqbal were not self-inflicted. The contents of Exh.P.B. Were duly proved by Dr. Sadaqat Ali Khan, Associate Professor of Surgery whereas P.W.3 Dr. Muhammad Athar, Chief Chemical Examiner (Retd.) Government of Punjab appeared and proved the contents of report Exhs.P.C. And P.C./1. A careful perusal of both the reports suggest to hold that Members of Medical Boards did notice injuries on the person of P.W. Nadeem Iqbal. As there were two reports of the experts i.e, Exh.P.B., P.B./1, P.C., and P.C./1 therefore, the opinion so expressed by the Doctors who have sufficient experience in their skill being Surgeons etc. Was rightly accepted by the Court after comparing with the opinion which was expressed by the appellants in the MLC Exh.P.A. In terms of Article 59 of the Qanune-Shahadat Order, 1984. It is important to note that although appellants examined Dr. Muhammad Arshad and Dr. Muhammad Akram as defence witnesses but they have not uttered a single word against the Medical Certificates Exhs.P.B. And P.C. To satisfy the Court that the opinion expressed therein by the Medical Boards is not worthy of acceptance on any principle of Medico.
Legal jurisprudence. Thus we are of the opinion that as sufficient documentary evidence was brought on record, therefore, the trial Court was quite justified in holding that appellants are guilty of fabricating M.L.C. Exh.P.A. Which was produced as a false evidence during judicial proceedings before the High Court.
14. Learned counsel Mr. Ibrahim Satti contended that in the matters relating to habeas corpus the Courts are not supposed to conduct an inquiry as it has been held in PLD 1974 Lahore 202; PLD 1975 Lahore 729; 1975 PCr.LJ 732 and 1990 PCr.LJ 342. In these judgments it has been stated that proceedings of Habeas Corpus are summary in character, therefore, cannot be gone into the controversial questions with regard to controversies between the parties. There is no cavil with the proposition discussed in these precedents but in the instant case the question involved is altogether different namely, the appellants had negated the stand of P.W.1 Nadeem Iqbal that he was subjected to physical torture and furnished a fabricated certificate Exh.P.A. Which was objected to by the detenu, as such the Court was compelled to call for opinion of the experts through Medical Board vide Exh.P.B. And to clarify any doubt in this behalf a second Medical Board was got constituted whose report substantially supported the report of the earlier Medical Board and when prima facie it was established that appellants are involved in preparing false documents then learned High Court proceeded against them in accordance with law.
15. Learned counsel then contended that impugned judgment shall cause prejudice to the case of Rai Munir Ahmad, A.S.-I. Against whom directions have been made for registration of the case and according to him pending decision of that case the High Court may not have expressed its opinion about causing injuries by the police officials on the person of P.W. Nadeem Iqbal during his detention. Reliance in this behalf was placed on 1988 MLD 2802. Suffice it to observe that the case against police officer shall proceed independent to instant proceedings because in this case the appellants are being charged for producing false evidence before the High Court during pendency of judicial proceedings and not for causing injuries to P.W. C Nadeem Iqbal and as both the offences are distinct and separate, therefore, no prejudice will be caused to the police officer whose case is pending for trial before a Court of. Law and will be decided without being influenced in any manner from the judgment of High Court.
16. Learned counsel Raja Ibrahim Satti then argued that there are contradictions in the prosecution evidence, therefore, the same should not have been accepted. We have considered the documentary evidence as well as statement of P.W. Nadeem Iqbal in the light of charge framed against appellants and we are of the opinion that there is no material contradiction to shake the intrinsic value of the prosecution evidence, thus, objection raised in this behalf is not sustainable.
17. Mr. Ibrahim Satti learned counsel then contended that if above pleas raised by him fail then in the alternative his request for reduction in the sentence may be considered as the appellants had no intention to commit the crime and they are also first offenders and are highly qualified persons being doctors, therefore, they may be dealt with leniently as far as quantum of sentence is concerned.
In the context of the plea on behalf of the appellants we consider it appropriate to point out that Dr. Muhammad Afzal (Medical Officer) has also been convicted/sentenced under section 192, P.P.C.
Whereas this section defines fabricating false evidence, therefore, to this extent the impugned order deserves to be set aside. It may be noted that object of awarding punishment to a person is two-fold namely that he should be sentenced for violating the law and secondly to serve as a deterrence to the like-minded persons who without caring for the consequences do wrongs and violate the law. However, quantum of sentence is determined keeping in view gravity of the offence so committed by the person facing trial. In the instant case we are of the considered opinion that undoubtedly both the appellants by furnishing Medical certificate Exh.P.A. Have produced false evidence during judicial proceedings pending before the High Court under section 491, Cr.P.C. But keeping in view the fact that both the appellants belong to an educated class of the society and statedly they are first offenders, therefore, we are inclined to reduce the sentence awarded to the appellants from 5 years' R.I. With fine of Rs,20,000 under section 197, P.P.C. To that of one year R.I.
With fine of Rs,10,000 each and in default in payment of fine they will further suffer S.I. For three months. However, the amount of fine if recovered shall be paid to P.W. Nadeem Iqbal as per orders of the High Court.
' With the above modification in the quantum of sentence the appeals are dismissed.