By this common order, three identical revision petitions will stand disposed. These revisions have attacked the same judgment. Therefore, these revisions were taken up together and arguments were heard from Messrs Imdad Ali Awan and Shaikh Amanullah, Advocates representing all the petitioners in the three revisions.
2. In short the facts are that on 5-8-1999 eight A.S.Is. Of Police Station, Rohri went for patrolling and received a common spy information, each one separately, at different places that in different houses in Rohri Town one male person in each information was in naked position and was preparing to commit Zina with a female partner. On such information each of the A.S.Is. Went to the respective house of each male accused and arrested such male persons alongwith a female. They were brought at the police station and separate cases against them were registered on the same day excepting two cases. In those two cases the concerned A.S.-I. Stated that the accused had disappeared from a window in the back of the house on their going to the said house. The accused who had run away were shown as absconders. Challans were submitted in different cases. In all the cases, all the A.S.Is. Who were the complainants had found holes in each door and that from such hole they had seen the accused persons in naked position preparing for commission of Zina.
In all cases Mushirnamas of arrest of the accused were prepared in presence of only two police officials who acted as Mushirs. On challaning the accused, the trial took place in the Court of Sessions Judge, Sukkur and all the A.S.Is. Who were the complainant in each case were examined separately and in each case one of the police officials who had acted as Mushir was also examined and the prosecution evidence was closed. After the examination of such two witnesses in each case, all the accused persons denied the prosecution case and they stated that they were taken to Police Station by the police on the directions of the then S.H.O. Hafeezullah Mangnejo of Police Station, Rohri for the sake of recovering money from them and on their failure to pay money to the S.H.O. They were challaned. They also claimed that many other persons of Rohri Town were brought similarly at the police station. Those who could pay the amount were later on released by the Police.
3. During the trial in each case, S.H.O. Hafeezullah Mangnejo was examined as C.W. The learned Judge also inspected the sites in each case and he framed the following points for determination in his judgment:-- (i)Whether the accused persons were found in the room in naked condition and were preparing for Zina on 5-8-1999?
(ii)What offence if any the accused had committed?
After discussing the evidence and other circumstances the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that under the direction of S. H. O. Hafeezullah Mangnejo, fathers alongwith their daughters, mothers alongwith their sons, daughters and nieces were involved falsely by the police with mala fide intention and that Hafeezullah, the S.H.O. Was in collision with all the A.S.Is. And that they had violated intentionally the sanctity of Chader and Chardewari. It was held that, under the circumstances, all the accused were acquitted in the cases as they were innocent and falsely involved. At the same time it was ordered that the A.S.Is. As well as Hafeezullha Mangnejo had given false evidence. Therefore, they were held liable to be tried for offence under sections 193 and 211, P.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge took the cognizance of the above offences himself and ordered that the Police officials be prosecuted summarily under section 476, Cr.P.C. For offence under section 193 read with section 211, P.P.C. In respect of the S.H.O. Hafeezullah Mangnejo it was held that the S.H.O. Was on duty on the relevant day and that the entire operation was conducted on his directions and that lodging of the false reports was on his instructions and in his authority for which he was responsible for action or omission (omission to check and stop registration of false cases) and therefore, against him also same action was ordered.
4. The petitioners who were all the A.S.Is. And the S.H.O., Hafeezullah Mangnejo had filed the present revision petitions challenging only that part of the judgment in which the cases filed by the Police Officers were held to be false, their evidence was held to be false and they were ordered to be prosecuted under section 476, Cr.P.C. The petitioners did not challenge the acquittal of those persons whom they had challaned and the acquitted accused persons were not made parties to these revisions.
5. Although remedy of filing appeals against acquittal was available with the petitioners but they did not avail the right of filing of appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioners were aware of the above position and even on the enquiry as to why they bad' not tiled appeals against acquittal it was clear from the reply given by the learned counsel that they did not want to challenge the acquittal of the accused persons against whom they had filed their cases.
6. The two counsel confined themselves only to the legality of the directions of the learned trial Judge for prosecution of the, petitioners, for the offence of filing false cases, under section 211, P.P.C.
And giving false evidence under section 193, P. P.C. The learned counsel Mr. Imdad Ali Awan took pains to argue that under section 487, Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge .Himself could not take cognizance and contended that only a Judge of the High Court could try any person for the offence as referred to under section 195, Cr.P.C. When such offence was committed in his presence.
7. However, the learned counsel could not produce any judgment or precedent on section 487, Cr.P.C. Although he was apprised of subsection (1) of section 487, Cr.P.C. Which begins with the wording of an exception in sections 476, 480 and 485, Cr.P.C.
8. Learned counsel relied on 1969 PCr.LJ 241 (Dhaka) but on scrutiny and appreciation, I have come to the conclusion that the facts of the said case were distinguishable and in those cases of forgery the conviction was based on the offence which was committed not inside the Court in presence of the learned Judge. Therefore, the said facts were not applicable in the present case as the petitioners had spoken falsehood in presence of the trial Judge in the present case and thereby had committed offence under section 193, P. P. C. And section 211, P. P. C.
9. The learned counsel also relied on 1996 PCr.LJ 514 (Karachi) which is a judgment of a Single Bench. In this judgment the learned counsel relied on the observation at page 522/C where it was held that there was no provision of Cr.P.C. Whereby trial Court could dispose of more than one case by one consolidated or one common Judgment. Reliance was placed on provisions of sections 366 and 367, Cr.P.C. In the reported case wherein it was found that in the one composite judgment which had decided six cases evidence of each witness was not separately discussed in each case.
The reported judgment was rightly passed and there could be no cavil With the dictum laid down in the reported case but the said judgment is quite distinguishable from the impugned judgment inasmuch as in the impugned judgment evidence of each witness in each case has been separately considered and discussed on merits. As regards the acquittal of the accused the same has not been challenged, and therefore, the acquittal has reached finality. The only thing challenged is the observation, rather direction of the trial Court to proceed under law against the complainants/petitioners who had lodged 4 false cases and perjured themselves on oath in judicial proceedings.
I find nothing illegal about that observation and therefore, I hold that provisions of Article 203-DD of the Constitution are not attracted.
10. Lastly the learned counsel also laid force on the point that petitioner No.2 in Criminal Revision No.3/K of 2000 S.I.P. Hafeezullah Mangnejo, S.H.O. Of the police station at the relevant time was not a party to the cases before the trial Court and that he could not be prosecuted. This point raised by the learned counsel was also considered and I have found that from the admission in the evidence, the trial Court had come to the conclusion that Hafeezullah Mangnejo was the person responsible for the registration of false cases and Hafeezullah Mangnejo himself was examined during `the trial as a Court-- witness and therefore, it cannot be said that he was not a party to the registration of the said F.I.Rs. Or that all the A.S.Is. Being his subordinates had not acted under his instructions.
Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel has no force.
11. In view of the above discussion, I find no force in all the three revision petitions and the same stand dismissed in limine.