2000 PLP 2595 (YLR)

S.182

Giving false information to Authorities

Proceedings under S.182, P.P.C. against the person giving such information

Failure to issue show-cause notice to the said person

Proceedings initiated on the calendar of information not prepared by the Investigating Officer-- Accused was convicted by Trial Court and conviction was upheld by the Appellate Court

Validity

Authorities must have concluded that the allegations levelled by the accused were incorrect and false

Failure to prove an allegation, which might be true, was a different thing and should not give rise to prosecution for such offence which required mens rea as well

Conviction and sentence awarded by both the Courts below were set aside. M. Saleem Sehgal for Petitioner. Masood Sadiq Mirza for the State. The petitioner submitted an application before the Additional Director, Anti-Corruption Establishment, Faisalabad on 4-7-1996, against Mst. Tanveer Firdaus, Assistant Professor Government Islamia College, Faisalabad, wherein it was alleged by him that Mst. Tanveer Firdaus obtained a sum of Rs 15,000 from him for getting him appointed as clerk in Education Department and that neither the amount was returned nor Mst. Tanveer Firdaus was able to secure any job for him. The complaint made by petitioner was found to be false. Thereafter an information under section 182, P.P.C. was placed before Ilaqa Magistrate for proceedings against the petitioner.

2. The Magistrate Ist Class vide order, dated 3-4-1999 convicted the petitioner and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000 on the petitioner-accused. The fine was paid by the petitioner.

3. Mst. Tanveer Firdaus filed an appeal on 10-4-1999 against the order dated 3-4-1999 of the trial Magistrate in the Court of Sessions Judge, Faisalabad. The petitioner convict also submitted an appeal before the Sessions Judge, Faisalabad. The Additional Sessions Judge, remitted the matter to trial Court. After remand, the case was entrusted to Additional District Magistrate, Faisalabad who convicted the petitioner under section 182, P.P.C. and awarded 6 months' S.I. vide judgment dated 15-1-2000. The appellant went in appeal. Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad vide order, dated 11-4-2000 reduced the sentence of imprisonment imposed on petitioner from 6 months' to 3 months' S.I. His conviction, however, was maintained.

4. Aggrieved of aforesaid orders under consideration petition was submitted in which notice to State was issued by order, dated 14-4-2000.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned judgments were based on mis-appreciation of law and evidence on record. It was submitted that the petitioner ought to have been issued notice prior to initiation of proceeding under section 182, P.P.C. which was not done and entire proceedings taken against the petitioner, therefore, were nullity in the eyes of law. It was submitted that allegations levelled by petitioner against Mst. Tanveer Firdous were not false and he was, as a matter of fact, not afforded full opportunity to prove his case. It was also contended that complaint was made by Mst. Tanveer Firdous and not by the public functionaries and proceedings against the petitioner were taken in violation of provisions of section 195, Cr.P.C. It was argued that conviction and sentence awarded to petitioner be set aside. Learned counsel for the State, opposed the prayer made by the petitioner.

6. Allegations against the petitioner were in terms that he moved an application against Mst. Tanveer Firdous, Assistant Professor of a College with the allegation that she obtained an amount of Rs.25,000 from the petitioner in order to get him a job in the Education Department but the lady failed to secure any job for the petitioner and money was also not returned to him. An inquiry was initiated by the Additional Director Anticorruption, Faisalabad. It was concluded during inquiry that petitioner had failed to prove its case against Mst. Tanveer Firdous and inquiry was filed. Neither any criminal case registered against Mst. Tanveer Firdous nor she was prosecuted in the matter. Subsequently, on the motion of Mst. Tanveer Firdous Office of Additional Director Anticorruption, laid information for commission of offence under section 182, P.P.C. against the petitioner in the Court of Magistrate 1st Class. The testimony of Additional Director clearly showed that calendar of information was not prepared by him and that he had only signed the information which was prepared by his Steno. That clearly showed that Additional Director did not apply his conscious mind to the facts of the case nor, had decided to initiate proceedings against the petitioner. A public functionary who desires to prosecute a person for offence under section 182, P.P.C. is required to apply his conscious mind to the facts of the case, come to the conclusion that the accused had actually committed the offence and that prosecution of that accused was desired by him. The record does not show that the requisite exercise was not taken by the Additional Director, Anticorruption in this regard. The information was, laid before the Magistrate in a mechanical manner and did not reveal the desire of the public functionary to prosecute the petitioner for the offence committed by him, if any.

7. It was also apparent from record that petitioner was not issued any show-cause notice prior to initiation of proceedings against him. It was held in Muhammad Murad v. The State 1983 PCr.LJ 1097 that a show-cause notice was necessary to be issued to an accused before proposed action was taken against him. Reliance for the view was also placed on 1974 PCr.LJ Note 114 at p.73, PLD 1960 Lah. 1039 and PLD 1970 Lah.

726. The petitioner was not issued any show-cause notice prior to initiation of proceedings against him under section 182, P.P.C. The proceedings initiated against the petitioner, therefore, in view of the precedent cited would be deemed to be nullity in the eyes of law.

9. The allegations against the petitioner were in terms that he failed to prove the correctness of his complaint made before Additional Director Anti-Corruption. No finding was recorded by any competent authority that complaint made by petitioner was false. Prosecution of the petitioner for offence under section 182, P.P.C., therefore, was not warranted. The Anti-Corruption Establishment must have concluded that the allegation levelled by the petitioner were incorrect and false. Failure to prove an allegation, which might be true, is a different thing and should not give rise to prosecution for offence under section 182, P.P.C. which requires mens rea as well.

10. For the foregoing reasons the criminal revision petition is allowed. Conviction and sentence awarded to petitioner by Magistrate Ist Class and having been upheld by . Additional Sessions Judge Faisalabad is hereby set aside. Q.M..H./M.A.K./M-246/ Revision allowed.