Court Lays The Law

COURT LAYS THE LAW COURT LAYS THE LAW By Sardar Muhammad Nazir Durrani, Advocate, Quetta Professor Masood Ahmed Abbasi, Advocate has contributed a very elaborate article on the topic of `Court lays Law'. It has been published at pages 1 to 5 of the journal portion of the PLD for the month of January, 1993. The learned author has rightly appreciated the Supreme Court case Bahadur and another v. The State and another (PLD 1985 SC 62), wherein it has been held by our Supreme Court that the cancellation of an F.I.R under section 173 of Cr.P.C. by a Magistrate is an administrative act and there is also scope for a private complaint thereof for the complainant. On page 4 of his Article, the author's views are:‑‑ "The law relating to cancellation of F.I.R. by the final report of the Police under section 173, Cr.P.C. having thus been finally laid by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, floods of light can now be thrown on the reading and understanding of section 182; P.P.C. which punishes for false information with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person. After the pronouncement of the Supreme Court judgment ...the falsity attached to his F.I.R. becomes final and the informer/complainant becomes liable to prosecution under section 182, P.P.C." On page 5:‑‑ "In other words the Courts, either at the stage of trial or appeal or revision under section 182, P.P.C. shall not be called upon or required to give a verdict on the falsity of F.I.R. which already stood established under section 173, Cr.P.C." The author's contribution leads that, the police, as public servant, need not file a complaint nor to prove that the information in the F.I.R, which has been cancelled by a Magistrate under section 173, Cr.P.C, is false and that the cancellation of an F.I.R. by a Magistrate automatically becomes false information, if the informer/complainant does not pursue a private complaint. So as to weigh the above said contention of the learned author, I will resort to Chapter X on the subject of contempt of the lawful authority of public servants, spread over sections 172 to 190, P.P.C. section 182, P.P.C. relates to false information with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person. Onwards there is Chapter XI, which is on the subject of false evidence and offences against public justice, contained in sections 191 to 229 of the Penal Code. Section 211 deals with false charge of offence made with intent to injure. In his article, the learned author has dilated on section 182, P.P.C. But to my extent of understanding, both section 182, P.P.C. and 211, P.P.C. may require discussion thereon. . The main distinction between section 182 and section 211 of P.P.C. is that section 182, P.P.C. provides false report as offence, and section 211, P.P.C. states false charges as offence, I mean to say false information in the shape of a report to a public servant will constitute offence under section 182, P.P.C. and false information in the shape of charge in Court will become offence under section 211, P.P.C. So to cut it short, in one word, it will mean hoax report makes out section 182, P.P.C. and hoax charge constitutes section 211 of P.P.C. I have gone through the Supreme Court case in PLD 1985 SC 62. The case relates to F.I.R. with Police; cancellation and discharge of accused by Magistrate, while proceeding under section 173, Cr.P.C. on request for cancellation from Police. I could not find any discussion regarding section 182, P.P.C. in the said case. 'Sometime, Police does not find adequate evidence in investigation, that will not mean that the information report is false. The cancellation of a case may be for variety of reasons, but whatever the reason in a given case, the matter is subject to proof, if a case is lodged by Police under section 182, P.P.C. In case of Mian Zahid Sarfraz v. The State, 1989 PCr.LJ 1831, it is held that information laid by accused before Police might not constitute an offence, but was largely found true, so case under section 182, P.P.C. was not made out. In case of Mian Fazal Ahmed v. The State PLD 1970 Lahore 726, it was held for section 182, P.P.C., Police cannot cancel case without Magistrate's order, and it was further observed that person laying information with Police is entitled to have his case judicially determined. Now according to our Supreme Court in PLD 1985 SC 62, cancellation of a case by Magistrate is an administrative act and not a judicial act. It means, that in case Court cancels a case, it never determines false charge against the person, who has laid information before the Police. So the Police will be required, to investigate, that the information laid by a person is false, that the person giving information knew or had reason to believe that the information was false, and that person. Intended injury through Police. After doing with the conditions which are prerequisite as above, the Police is to prove the case in Court also, and cannot escape liability of onus proof, merely because a case information laid by that person before the Police is cancelled by a Magistrate under section 173 of Cr.P.C. previously. For my above contention, I rely on case of Taj Muhammad and another v. The State and another, 1980 PCr.LJ 1006, wherein it is observed that for the purpose of section 182, P.P.C., there should be sufficiency of evidence, that the information was false. The law provides, that case under section 182 of P.P.C. be lodged by the very public servant before whom, the information alleged as false was laid, as it is not otherwise permissible in view of section 195 of Cr. P.C. as gathered from Abdul Manan v. The State 1990 PCr.LJ 777. Similarly in case of section 211, P.P.C., I refer to case of Taj Muhammad and another v. The State and another, 1980 PCr.L1 1003, where case of false charge is discussed. On page 1006, it is observed that a case may result in dismissal of a complaint, for a variety of reasons, like insufficiency of evidence, benefit of doubt, interested evidence, lack of corroboration, therefore, for proving false charge, there should be strong evidence. Proof is required for proceeding on false charge also. While concluding, I feel reference to case of Mansab Ali v. Ameer and 3 others, PLD 1971 SC 124, may be essential. In this case it is observed by Supreme Court, that if a mandatory condition for the exercise of jurisdiction by a Court, Tribunal or Authority, is not fulfilled, the entire proceedings shall fall down. I think, Police is required to observe prerequisites of section 182 P.P.C., and to prove the same in Court, otherwise its exercise of authority regarding false information report, may be futile. I agree with the learned author that Judges are guardians of law as said by Plato, but. I differ with him, that the Supreme Court case in PLD 1985 SC 62, opens floodlights on section 182, P.P.C., and that the said case provides that the Police is absolved from holding investigation into complaint under section 182 of P.P.C., merely because a case is cancelled under section 173 of Cr.P.C, by a Magistrate, The law of section 182, P.P.C. has not been disturbed in the said Supreme Court case. MRS. JUSTICE NASIRA IQBAL, JUDGE, LAHORE HIGH COURT Born in Lahore on 21 st December, 1940. Matriculation from the Queen Mary's College, Lahore in 1956 securing Board Scholarship in Matric; First Positions in F.A.; Bachelor of Arts, Kinniard College for Women, Lahore in 1960 getting first position; Bachelor of Laws, Punjab University Law College, Lahore in 1975 securing second position; Master of Laws, Punjab University Law College, Lahore in 1985; Master of Laws (Cum Laude), Harvard Law School, U.S.A. in 1986; appeared for Diploma in Intellectual Property Laws (Pb.) in 1994. Enrolled as advocate in the subordinate Courts. Punjab in 1978, Lahore High Court, Lahore in 1983 and Supreme Court of Pakistan in 199 3; Visiting Lecturer, Punjab University Law College, Lahore from 1986 to 1990: Convener, Fatima Memorial Free Legal Aid Centre, Shadman; Vice‑Presides Pakistan Women Lawyers' Association; Honorary Legal Advisor, International Women's Club, Lahore; Vice‑Chairperson, Legal Affairs APWA, Punjab; Legal Advisor to several Corporations; Member, Lahore High Court Bar Association Member, Library Legal Aid Committees of High Court Bar Association. As for extra legal; activities she has been Chairperson, Fatima Memorial Hospital, Shadman, Lahore; A 330 Bed Non‑Profit Hospital for Women and Children; Chairperson, WVS Free Mobile Health Unit; Member, International School System, 8‑J Gulberg‑III; Member, Business and Professional Women's Club, Lahore; Member, Board of Trustees, Bhandara Foundation; Member, Punjab Social Welfare Board; Member, Punjab Mental Health Association; Trustee Ferozsons Trust. Apart from that she has also been a Director, Ferozsons Limited, Printers/Publishers in 1972‑74; President, International Women's Club of Lahore in 1981‑82; President, Old Associates of Kinniard Society (OAKS) in 1986‑88 and Member, Central Board of Film Censors in 1988‑90. She has also been taking keen interest in Educational, Political and Legal Institutions, Free Legal Aid, Women's and Children's Rights, Publishing, Health Care Projects, Corporate Law, Banking Law, Trade Marks and Copyrights. She has Toured extensively and lectured on Women's Rights and Development in Canada, USA, India, China, Kuwait and Dubai. Participated in Seminars on Interfaith Understanding in Vienna 1992 and Amman (Jordan) 1993. She was elevated as Additional Judge of Lahore High Court on 7th August, 1994.