1994 P Cr (PLP)

SYED MANZOOR HUSSAIN GILANI, J.

This acquittal appeal is preferred against the order passed by Tehsildar, Magistrate 2nd Class, Hattian on 31-10-1992, whereby the respondent is acquitted of the charge levelled against him under section 182, P.C.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent Muhammad Ayub lodged an F.I.R. in the Police Station Chakar on 25-4-1987, whereby a case under sections 431, 147/148 and 149, P.C. was registered against Muhammad Sharif and others, who were nominated as accused in the F.I.R. During the investigation, the path which was reported in the F.I.R. to have been blocked, was released on account of a negotiation in the "Brothery Jirga". The investigation conducted on the basis of F.I.R. was, however, concluded as not proved.

3. A complaint was latter lodged on 26-2-1990 before Tehsildar Magistrate 2nd Class Hattian by police under section .182, P.C. against Muhammad Ayub respondent, who had moved the police through the F.I.R. The learned Magistrate recorded the statements of Shaukat Ali, Ghulam Mustafa, Barkat Ali and Muhammad Saeed Khan, S.H.O. The Police Prosecutor abandoned the other witnesses cited in the challan, as unnecessary through his statement recorded before the Magistrate on 28-8-1991. The learned Magistrate acquitted the respondent of the charge through the impugned order.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The following line of the complaint lodged before the Tehsildar Magistrate 2nd Class is worth to be reproduced:-- leaves no doubt that the F.I.R. as lodged by the respondent was not false, as the Police Officer preferring complaint under section 182, P.C. has himself admitted that the path complained as having been blocked, was got released through the "Brothery Jirga".

5. A person can be charged for an offence under section 182, P.C. only when he gives "to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false". The above statement of the Police Officer who lodged the complaint under section 182, P.C. when read in the light of the provisions of law, clearly establishes that the respondent had not wilfully or knowingly lodged false complaint, as the path was in fact released during the course of negotiation by the "Brothery Jirga". An information lodged with the bona fide belief and knowledge of its being true, cannot be termed as false, if the same is not proved in accordance with the legal or procedural standard of proof. Such? a complaint or information can be said to be not proved, but not as false, so as to attract the penal provisions of section 182 P.C. The statements of the witnesses on record also do not prove the guilt against the respondent.

5. In view of above, the finding recorded by the trial Court does not seem to suffer from any infirmity or illegality on facts as well as on law. The appeal is dismissed. N.H.Q./23/H.C.A.???????????????? ??????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed.