' This judgment will dispose of Criminal Appeal No,300/J of 2000 filed by the appellant from jail against the judgment, dated 30-10-2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh, whereby he convicted the appellant under section 295-C, P.P.C. And sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs,2,00,000 (two lacs) or in default 5 years' R.I.
2. Brief facts as narrated in the F.I.R. Are that on 8-9-1998 after Isha prayer a meeting was convened in Mosque of Ahi Hadees of Chak No,355/JB by Ghulam Muhammad, Muhammad Malik, Muhammad Mushtaq, Muhammad Ishaque and Mukhtar Ahmad without obtaining permission from concerned authorities. Qari Muhammad Younas accused also addressed that Jalsa and during his address he used filthy language against ,Oulia-e-Ikram and also stated that Holy Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) used to take wine. Qari Muhammad Younas also criticized the Sunni sect i.e, Brailvi and Duobandi Qari Muhammad Younas was asked to take back these words but he refused to do so on which people of the village were irritated. Case was registered against said Qari Muhammad Younas.
3. The police after thorough investigation found the accused guilty and prepared challan against him and sent up the same to the Court for trial.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has produced 6 witnesses in all. Thereafter, statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. In which he pleaded not guilty.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant who has been appointed by this Court at State expense to defend the appellant, submits that no case is made out against the appellant that the witnesses produced by the prosecution are partisan and they have got religious differences with the appellant. Learned counsel also raised a legal objection that under section 196, Cr.P.C. Unless Central Government or Provincial Government has authorised any officer empowering this behalf to lodge-a complaint, the F.I.R. Cannot be lodged and the case cannot be proceeded and the learned trial Court was not in a position to take the cognizance of the matter. That at the time of alleged words uttered by the appellant in the meeting, admittedly no P.W. Was present there. All the witnesses who had deposed against the appellant, their evidence is based on hearsay evidence. Admittedly, there is dispute between the people having sect's i.e, on one side. AhlHadees and on the other side Daubandi and Brailvi. Prior to the present occurrence proceedings under sections 107/151, Cr.P.C. Were also initiated against both the sects mentioned above. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the plea taken up by the appellant in his statement. Under section 342, Cr.P.C. Gets support from the statement of P.W.4 who has stated in his examinationin- chief that Qari Muhammad Younas appellant firstly stated that Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) had taken honey but Kafars stated that Holy Prophet (p.b.u.h.) had taken wine.
6. On the other hand learned State Counsel supports the judgment of the learned trial Court and submits that prosecution has proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also have gone through the record. In the instant case I would like to dispose of this appeal on the legal objection which has been raised before me by the learned counsel for the appellant and for the just decision of the case section 196, Cr.P.C. Is reproduced below:- "Section 196, Cr.P.C.---Prosecution for offences against the State.---No Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Chapter VI or IX-A of the Pakistan Penal Code (except section 127), or punishable under section 108-A, or section 153-A or section 294-A, or section 295-A or section 505 of the same Code, unless upon complaint made by order of or under authority from, the Central Government or the Provincial Government concerned, or some officer empowered in this behalf by either of the two Governments."
' A bare perusal of section 196, Cr.P.C. Would show that the learned trial Court could not have taken cognizance of the instant case without complaint made by order of or under authority from, the Central Government or the Provincial Government concerned, or some officer empowered in this behalf by either of the two Governments. After scanning the record no such permission or authority has been given to any official of the Central or Provincial Government, so the learned trial Court was not competent to take cognizance and to try the case. It is also evident from the record that the intention of the appellant could not be proved if one goes through the evidence recorded by the learned trial Court, particularly evidence of P.W.4. Learned trial Court also did not agree with the inquiry conducted by P.W.5 because the same was conducted on the back of the appellant.
Appellant has also denied the allegation levelled against him. Both the sects mentioned above were also preceded under sections 107/151, Cr.P.C. Both the sects i.e, complainant party and the appellant party belong to two rival religious groups and deep-rooted enmity exists between them.
Evidence produced by the prosecution based on hearsay evidence. No person from the members of meeting, in which these words were uttered by the appellant, has been produced. Possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. In this view of the matter this appeal is accepted and the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant are set aside. The appellant is ordered to be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case.