Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 13 views

    2020 S C M R 414

    Uploaded by

    Logarithm Table

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    2020 S C M R 414

    Uploaded by

    Logarithm Table
    13 views4 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    13 views4 pages

    2020 S C M R 414

    Uploaded by

    Logarithm Table

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 4

    2020 S C M R 414

    [Supreme Court of Pakistan]


    Present: Ejaz Afzal Khan and Ijaz ul Ahsan, JJ

    NADAR WALI---Petitioner

    Versus

    SUMAYA GUL and another---Respondents

    Criminal Petition No. 879 of 2016, decided on 3rd November, 2017.*

    (On appeal against the judgment dated 18.07.2016 passed by the Peshawar High
    Court, Peshawar in Cr.A. No. 551 of 2011)

    Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---

    ----Ss. 195(1)(b) & 195(1)(c)---Using forged documents during court proceedings--


    -Prosecution under S. 195, Cr.P.C.---Procedure---Complaint in writing by the court
    where forged document presented---Scope---Petitioner by using forged documents
    during proceedings before the Family Court had prima facie committed offences
    enumerated in S. 195(1)(b) & (c), Cr.P.C.---Case was registered against the
    petitioner under Ss. 419, 420, 468, 471, 208, 406 & 193, P.P.C. and forwarded to
    the Trial Court for trial but the Trial Court could not take cognizance of the
    offences as complaint in writing by the Court concerned or the Court to which such
    Court was subordinate was not made---Held, that Single Judge of the High Court
    while deciding the appeal in the present case could have directed the Family Court
    where the forged document was used in evidence, to file a complaint in writing in
    respect of the offences committed, before the Court of competent jurisdiction, but
    he, for whatever reasons opted to remand the case to the Trial Court for proceeding
    against the accused for offences other than those mentioned in S. 195 Cr.P.C.---
    Remand of the case for proceeding with the trial of the offences which were neither
    made out nor committed by the petitioner was absolutely unjustified as it was not a
    trial for the heck of it but a trial for the offences committed during the proceedings
    before the Family Court---If the Trial Court could not take cognizance of the case
    for want of complaint for the offences committed, proper complaint was the
    remedy---Resumption of the trial on remand of the case for the offences not
    committed would be nothing but mockery of law and travesty of justice which
    could not be allowed under any circumstances---Since Trial Court in view of the
    provisions contained in S. 195(1)(b) & (c), Cr.P.C. could not take cognizance of the
    matter, the Supreme Court directed the Family Court to file a compliant against the
    petitioner in accordance with provisions of S. 195, Cr.P.C. for the offences alleged
    to have been committed by him---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into
    appeal and allowed accordingly.
    Altaf Samad, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
    Mujahid Ali Khan, Additional A.-G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for the State.
    Nemo for the Complainant.
    Date of hearing: 3rd November, 2017.
    ORDER
    EJAZ AFZAL KHAN, J.---This petition for leave to appeal has arisen out of
    the judgment dated 18.07.20.16 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar whereby the
    learned Single Judge in its chambers allowed the appeal filed by the respondents,
    set aside the order dated 27.07.2011 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
    Peshawar acquitting the petitioner and sent the case back to the trial Court for
    proceeding against him for the offences except those mentioned in section 195(1)
    (b) and (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898.
    2. Learned ASC appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended
    that where offences enumerated in section 195(1)(a), (b) and (c) can not be taken
    cognizance of by the trial Court unless a complaint in writing has been made by the
    Court where a forged document was produced or some other Court to which such
    Court is subordinate,. the learned Additional Sessions Judge did not commit any
    error by acquitting the petitioner in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction, therefore,
    the impugned judgment being against the letter and spirit of section 195, Cr.P.C.
    cannot be maintained.
    3. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State
    contended that the petitioner has prima facie committed the offences enumerated in
    section 195(1)(b) and (c) no court could take cognizance of the case unless a
    complaint in writing by the Court concerned or the Court to which such Court is
    subordinate is made.

    4. We have gone through the record and considered the submissions of the
    learned ASCs. The record reveals that the petitioner by using forged documents
    during proceedings before the Family Court has prima facie committed offences
    enumerated in section 195(1)(b) and (c), Cr.P.C. A case was registered against the
    petitioner under sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 208, 406 and 193, P.P.C. and
    forwarded to the Trial Court for trial but the trial Court could not take cognizance
    of the offences as complaint in writing by the Court concerned or the Court to
    which such Court is subordinate was not made. The learned Single Judge of the
    High Court while deciding the appeal in this case could have directed the Family
    Court where the forged document was used in evidence, to file a complaint in
    writing in respect of the offences committed, before the Court of competent
    jurisdiction. But he, for the reason best known to him, opted to remand the case to
    the Trial Court for proceeding against the accused for offences other than those
    mentioned in section 195, Cr.P.C. Remand of the case for proceeding with the trial
    of the offences which were neither made out nor committed by the petitioner was
    absolutely unjustified as it was not a trial for the heck of it but a trial for the
    offences committed during the proceedings before the Family Court. If the Trial
    Court could not take cognizance of the case for want of proper complaint for the
    offences committed, proper complaint was the remedy. Resumption of the trial on
    remand of the case for the offences not committed would be nothing but mockery
    of law and travesty of justice which cannot be allowed under any circumstances.
    Let the things be done in accordance with the requirements of law. Shortcuts would
    not only complicate the matter but also enable the accused to escape the
    punishment in the offences he committed. We thus do not feel persuaded to
    maintain the impugned judgment.

    5. For the reasons stated above, we convert this petition into an appeal, allow it
    and set aside the impugned judgment by holding that the trial Court in view of the
    provisions contained in section 195(1)(b) and (c), Cr.P.C. could not take cognizance
    of the matter. However, we direct the Family Court to file a compliant against the
    petitioner in accordance with provisions of section 195, Cr.P.C. for the offences
    alleged to have been committed by him.
    MWA/N-18/SC Petition allowed.
    ;

    You might also like