1. ' Brief facts leading to issuance of notice under section 193, P.P.C. And also notice for contempt are that Muzammal Hussain being accused in case F.I.R. No,168 dated 8-6-2002 for offences under sections 302/148 and 149 registered with Police Station Zafarwal District Narowal applied for pre- arrest bail vide Criminal Miscellaneous No,4170/B of 2002 which came up for hearing on 21-6-2002.
2. The petition was entertained directly for the reasons recorded in the petition. On the said date, notice was issued to the State for 25-6-2002 and in the meanwhile, Muzammal petitioner was allowed ad interim pre-arrest bail subject to furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,50,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. Thereafter, on 22-6-2002 a petition for contempt being No,C.O. 75 of 2002 was filed the very next day of ing order (21-6-2002) which came up for hearing on 24-6-2002. The grievance voiced in the contempt petition was that despite the fact that Muzammal, accused-petitioner was allowed pre-arrest bail by this Court, he was arrested by Muhammad Boota, S.-I. Accordingly, notice was issued to Muhammad Boota, S.-I. For 25-6-2002. He filed the written reply stating therein Muzammal was nominated accused in case F.I.R. No,168 under section 302, P.P.C. Registered with Police Station Zafarwal on 8-6-2002 and that he had arrested said Muzammal on 21-5-2002 from Mauza Sankthara. He also stated that neither any order of bail passed by this Court was produced nor he had received any order granting bail to Muzammal accused. The matter was then adjourned to 26-6-2002. On this date, the following order was passed:- "Mr. Anwar-ul-Haq Pannu, Advocate present in Court on behalf of contemner, who is also present in Court, submits that in fact Muzammal Hussain, who was allowed interim bail before arrest by this Court on 21-6-2002 never showed the order granting interim bail to the contemner. He further submits that in fact on 21-6-2002, petitioner did not appear before this Court and somebody else appeared before this Court even in his place, although his identity card was placed on record alongwith bail before arrest petition which is still pending and is fixed for today. He also submits that inquiry should be held because signatures of the petitioner on the petition, affidavit and the power of attorney are bogus one.
2. On the other hand, learned counsel for Muzammal Hussain submits that Muzammal Hussain had appeared before this Court on 21-6-2002 when interim bail before arrest was granted. Further submits that he had obtained signatures of Muzammal Hussain on his affidavit and power of attorney.
3. First of all' I would like to resolve the controversy whether Muzammal Hussain petitioner had' appeared in this Court or not on 21-6-2002.
3. 4.1. At this stage, learned A.A.-G.Submits that in fact Muzammal. Hussain petitioner was already in illegal custody of contemner Muhammad Boota, S.-I. Before 21-6-2002.
5. Under the circumstances, I would like to record the statement of Muzammal Hussain and I' have ordered that his hand cuffs be removed and his statement be recorded on oath which is recorded on a separate sheet. At this stage, I have asked the contemner and the petitioner of contempt petition to go outside the Court room so that statement of Muzammal Hussain who is petitioner in bail before arrest petition be recorded without any pressure and influence."
4. ' Statement of Muzammal was recorded in which he stated as under:-- "I am a Zamindar by profession, I have studied upto F.A. I had filed instant Bail Petition No,4170/B of 2002. Identity Card mark "A" alongwith my bail petition is mine. The signatures on the affidavit filed alongwith bail petition Mark "B" and Mark "C" are mine and same is the position that signature on the power of attorney mark "D" is also mine. I was allowed interim bail before arrest by this Court on 21-6-2002 till 26-6-2002. Aamir Shahzad who has filed Criminal Original No,75 of 2002 against Muhammad Boota S.-I. Is my real brother. I was taken into custody by Muhammad Boota S.-I.
5. Contemner at 4-00 p.m. From the office of Abdul Hakeem situated at Beadon Road in front of Chaman Ice Cream Shop. I had shown the certificate to Muhammad Boota, S.I. Issued by my learned counsel about the fact that I had been allowed interim bail before arrest by this Court. After taking the said certificate in his hand, contemnor torn the same into pieces and told me that you do not stop below the High Court. I was given kick blows by Muhammad Boota S.-I. Then I was taken in a police van to Police Post Tapiala, where I was confined in Godown, there was complete darkness where either some snakes or some other poison insect bite me. I was produced before the learned Magistrate on 22-6-2002. As I was physically and under complete mental tension due to my illegal detention by Muhammad 13000 contemner so apprehending more danger I did not tell this fact to the learned Magistrate. I was given physical remand till 26-6-2002. During this period, I was given fist and kick blows, Filthy abuses were showered on me and today when I was being brought to this Court on the order of this Court, I was threatened with dire consequences.
6. Boota, S.-I. Has also threatened me that I should make the statement in favour of Boota, S.-I. I do not want to say anything else.
7. ' Aamar Shahzad, brother of Muzanunal also toed the line of Muzammal.
8. ' Statement of Abdul Hakeem from whose office at Beadon Road, Lahore Muzammal was allegedly arrested by Muhammad Boota, 5.-I. Was also recorded. His statement reads as under:-- "I know Muzammal Hussain who is petitioner in Criminal. Miscellaneous No,4180/B of 2002. He did not meet me for the last 8/10 days. I have got my land at district Narowal adjacent to the land of Ijaz Goraya, who is father-in-law of Muzammal Hussain, who has taken the same from mews a tenant. The last time he met me, that was, in the last month. In this month, Mumzammal Hussain did not meet me. On 21-6-2002, I did not meet Muzammal Hussain."
9. ' On the said date, statement of Muhammad Boota, S.-I. Was also recorded which reads as under:- - "I am matric pass. I was recruited as F.C. In the Police Department on 8-1-977. This Court must expect from me that I should tell the truth and only truth. Muzammal Hussainwho has filed Criminal Miscellaneous No,4180/E of 2002 is a named accused in case F.I.R. No,168 of Police Station Zafarwal dated 8-6-2002. I had taken into my custody Muzammal. Hussain petitioner on 8-6-2002 .From village Budha Pind then I took him at Chowki Tapiala. Since 8-6-2002 till today Muzammal Hussain is in my custody. I had produced Muzammal Hussain before the Magistrate, for physical remand for the first time on 22-6-2002. I had come to know on 24-6-2002 that interim bail before arrest was granted to Muzammal Hussain. It is correct that yesterday, I had filed the reply of contempt notice before this Court which is now Mark "A" in the contempt petition. It is also correct that the said reply filed by me is in my own handwriting and signed by me. It is correct that statement made by me today in the Court is- totally contradicted to my reply which I. Had submitted yesterday. I do not want to say anything else.
10. ' Since learned counsel for Muhammad Boota, S.-I. Submitted that Muzammal did not appear but somebody else had appeared and that an inquiry should be held, I summoned an Inspector from the office of Forensic Science Laboratory who got the specimen signature of MuzammalHussain and to compare the same with the signatures appearing on the affidavit filed with bail petition and the power of attorney. The proceedings were then postponed to 27-6-2002 on which date report from the Examiner of Questioned documents was submitted which reads as under:-- "After detailed comparison and analysis it was found that the questioned english signatures of Muzammil Hussain marked as Annexure Exhs.B, C. And affidavit Annexure 'D' on power of attorney respectively do not bear identical characteristics with the routine English signatures supplied on original National Identity Card No,34501-1984451-2, specimen English signature on fifteen specimen sheets marked as Exhs,P.1 to P.15 and are forged signature.,"
11. ' In this background, notices were issued to Muzammil Hussain, Aamir Shahzad, Ch. Muhammad Anwer Khan, Advocate and Muhammad Boota, S.-I. To show-cause as to why proceedings under section 193, P.P.C. And professional misconduct may not be initiated against them. Replies were ordered to be filed well before the next date of hearing. The case was adjourned to 1-7-2002 on which date replies were filed by Muzammal Shabbir, Aamair Shahzad and Muhammad Boota but learned counsel for Ch. Muhammad Anwar Khan, Advocate sought time to file the reply on the ground of having been engaged on that day. On the request of learned counsel, the case was ordered to be taken up on 5-7-2002.
12. ' Learned A.A.-G. Submits that on 21-6-2002 when ad interim pre-arrest bail was granted to Muzammal petitioner did not appear before the Court rather someone else was produced through impersonation and that the alleged signatures of Muzammal on the power of attorney and the affidavit Mark B and Mark are forged, as is evident from the report of the Examiner of questioned documents dated 27-6-2002. Further submits that Muzammal made mis-statement before this Court that he appeared before this Court on 21-6-2002 and after grant of interim bail' before arrest was arrested by Muhammad Biota, S.I. From the office of one Abdul Hakeem at Beadon Road, Lahore because the said Abdul Hakeem in his statement recorded by this Court has not supported the statement of Muzammal and Aamir. Adds that as far as Ch. Muhammad Anwar Khan, Advocate is concerned, he admitted before the Court that he obtained the signatures of Muzammal on his affidavit and the power of attorney which fact also stands negated from the report of the Examiner of questioned documents. Muzammal also made mis-statement before this Court that he had signed the power of attorney and the affidavit appeared before this Court on 21-5-2002 and was arrested by Muhammad Boota on the same day at 4 p.m. From the office of Abdul Hakeem at Beadon Road, Lahore. Same is the position of Aamir, brother of Muzammal. Learned A.A.-G. Submits that Muhammad Boota, S.-I. Also made two contradictory statements, one in his urdu reply and the other recorded by this Court on 26-6-2002. Concluding his submissions, learned A.A.-G. Submits that all the respondents have committed the offence under section 193, P.P.C. And they are liable to proceeded against.
13. ' In reply, Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Cheema, Advocate representing Muzammal and Aamir Shehzad submits that the statements of the said contemners is supported from the affidavits filed by Abdul Hakeem and his son Muhammad Yousaf. Further subthits that in fact Muzammal signed the power of attorney and the affidavit and also appeared before this Court at the time of ing order, that is, on 21-5-2002 and that opinion of the Handwriting Expert cannot be given preference over the statements of the witnesses. Elaborating his arguments, learned counsel submits that against the statement of Muhammad 'Boota, S.-I. That he had arrested Muzammal Hussain on 21-6-2002 from village Bhuda Pind, there are affidavits of Abdul Hakeem and his son Muhammad Ashraf and that no reliance can be placed on the contradictory statements of Muhammad Boota, S.-I.
14. ' Learned counsel representing Muhammad Boota, S.-I. Submits that the ing order passed by this Court was never produced before Boota, S.-I. And had it been so, he must have shown due deference to the said order. It is, however, admitted by learned counsel for Muhammad Boota, S.-I.
15. That at the most the offence if any has been committed by Muhammad Boota is that of illegal confinement but adds that it is routine of the police that accused are arrested but their formal arrest is not shown just to collect further evidence and to reach at the truth. Further submits that the reply given in English is in continuation of Urdu reply submitted by Muhammad Boota, S.-I. On 25-6-2002.
16. ' As far as Ch. Muhammad Anwer Khan, Advocate, is concerned, Ch. Ali Muhammad, Advocate submits that the contemner had just filed a bail petition on behalf of Muzammal Hussain, petitioner and had not given any evidence or fabricated the same and did not appear as a witness. Further submits that when it is admitted by petitioner Muzammal that he engaged Ch. Muhammad Anwer Khan, Advocate as his counsel signed the power of attorney and the affidavit, then no inquiry needs to be held against the counsel and he did not do any act within the definition of section 193, P.P.C. Adds that whatever has been done by Ch. Muhammad Anwer Khan, Advocate that has been done in discharge of his professional duties and that there was no mens rea or intention. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has relied upon PLD 1985 Pesh. (sic) and PLJ 1991 Cr.C.
17. 2002. Concluding his submissions, learned counsel submits that the learned Advocate neither being petitioner or complainant or witness, proceedings under .Section 193, P.P.C. Would be nullity in the eye of law.
18. ' I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have gone through the written replies filed by the respondents and also their statements made on oath before this Court and the report of the Examiner of questioned documents.
19. ' So far as objection of learned counsel for the accused-respondents that the opinion of the Handwriting Expert cannot be given preference over the statements of the P.Ws., is concerned, it is to be noted that under section 510, Cr.P.C. Report of the Handwriting Expert is admissible in evidence. Moreover, none of the learned counsel for the accused-respondents asked orally or through written application to summon the Handwriting Expert for cross-examination.
20. First of all I would take up the case of Muzammal Hussain and Aamir Shahzad. From the report of the Examiner of questioned documents, it is crystal clear that the power of attorney and the affidavit Marks "B" and "D" with the bail petition (Criminal Miscellaneous No,4180/B of 2002) were not A signed by Muzammal. If this is the position, then it can be safely inferred that Muzammal did not appear before this Court on 21-6-2002 when ad interim pre-arrest bail was granted to him and someone else appeared. According to reply Mark "A" in Criminal Original 75 of 2002 submitted by Muhammad Boota, S.-I. Muzammal was arrested on 21-6-2002 from village Sankthara while Muhammad Boota, S.-I. In his statement on oath before this Court recorded on 26-6-2002 stated that he arrested Muzammal on 8-6-2002 and produced him for the first time before the Magistrate on 22-6-2002. Though statements of Boota, S.-I. Are contradictory to each other but one thing is clear that Muzammal petitioner was in his custody since 8-6-2002. The plea in the contempt petition that Muhammad Boota, S.-I. Arrested Muzammal accused-petitioner at 4 p.m. On 21-6- 2002 from the office of one Abdul Hakeem at Beadon Road, Lahore has remained unproved because Abdul Hakeem while making statement on oath before this Court that for the last one month Muzammal had not met him. So far as affidavit of Muhammad Yousaf son of Abdul Hakeem is concerned, it is straightaway ruled out of consideration for the reason that it was never stated either by Muzammal, Aamir or Abdul Hakeem in their statemenis recorded on oath by this Court that Muzammal and Aamir Shahzad met Muhammad Yousaf and that Abdul Hakeem was not present in his office and had gone with Tableeghi Jamat. It is all afterthought and cooked up story.
21. This being the position, it is also established beyond any doubt that the statement made by Ch. Muhammad Anwar Khan, Advocate that he got signed the power of attorney and the affidavit Marks B and D from Muzammal accused petitioner is false. The obvious result is that Muzammal is guilty of impersonation apart from the offence contemplated under section 193, P.P.C. Similarly Aajnir Shahzad had made mis-statements and has tried to hoodwink the law. Muzammal C and Aamir Shahzad respondents are thus convicted under section 193, P.P.C. And sentenced to undergo R.I. For one year with further direction to pay a fine of Rs,10,000 each and in default thereof to undergo S.-I. For two three months each.
22. ' Now I take up the case of Ch. Muhammad Anwar Khan, Advocate and agree with the submissions made by Ch. Ali Muhammad, Advocate for the reason that he was neither the petitioner, nor witness nor the complainant. He simply acted as a pleader but did not act diligently. Moreso, it is the practice that the power of attorney, petitions and the affidavits are got signed by the clerks of the Advocates. There is no doubt Ch. Muhammad Anwar Khan, Advocate did not act with due caution and care, so taking a lenient view of the matter, notice issued to him is discharged, but he is warned to be careful in future.
23. ' So far as Boota S.-I. Is concerned, he made different statements before this Court. In the written reply submitted in response of contempt notice, he pleaded that he had arrested Muzammal on 21-6-2002 from Sankhtara while in his statement made before this Court on oath on 26-6-2002 he stated that he had taken Muzammal into his custody on 8-6-2002 and produced him before the Magistrate on 22-6-2002. Without discussing anything else, it is established that Muhammad Boota, S.-I. Made two different statements before this Court apart from the fact that he is also guilty for illegal detention of Muzammal for 14 days. In these circumstances, the action of Muhammad Boota, S.-I. Is fully covered by the provisions of section 193, P.P.C. Accordingly, he is convicted under section 193, P.P.C. And sentenced to undergo one year's R.I. With further direction to pay Rs,10,000 as fine and in default thereof to undergo S.I. For three months. So far as illegal confinement of Munzammal is concerned, Muhammad Boota, S.-I. Is directed to pay Rs,20,000 as compensation to Muzammal Hussain, accused petitioner. In default of payment of said amount of Rs,20,000 Muhammad Boota, S.-I-will undergo S.I. For two months. It may be noted here that the written reply Mark "A" which Muhammad Boota, S.-I. Submitted in reply to contempt notice is false.
24. ' Since the accused-respondents have been sentenced to one year's R.I. With fine, hence to enable them to file appeal, their sentences are suspended as provided in section 382-A, Cr.P.C. For a period of 10 days subject to their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs,20,000 with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar (Judi.) of this Court.
25. Accused convicted.