1993 P Cr (PLP)

Malik Muhammad Akram Khan Awan for Appellant. Tariq Mahmood Mughal for the State. Date of hearing: 15th December, 1992. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Jhang dated 6-5-1991 whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to 15 days R.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000 and in default of payment of fine to further R.I. for 15 days, under section 193, P.P.C. read with section 476, Cr.P.C.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant had appeared as a witness in case F.I.R. No.345, dated 19-10-1990 under sections 302/34, 109, P.P.C. Police Station Mochiwala, Tehsil and District Jhang and according to the impugned judgment he had deliberately made a false statement on oath when he appeared as P.W.7. The appellant confessed the guilt that he had made a false statement in the Court during proceedings of the murder trial. He tendered unconditional apology and requested for pardon.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant was working as Patwari for the last about only six months, who was served with a notice for making false statement on oath during the Court proceedings. The appellant admitted that he had made a false statement on oath during the proceedings of the murder case when he appeared as P.W.7. He confessed the guilt that he intentionally made a false statement in the Court during proceedings and have tendered unconditional apology and requested for pardon. It is pertinent to mention here that during examination-in-chief the appellant had stated that he had prepared the site plan Exhs.P.G. and P.G./1 on the place of occurrence. All the points, notes and drawings of site plans Exh.P.G. and Exh.P.G./1 with black ink are in his hand and bore his signatures but during cross-examination he had staled that Exh.P.G. and Exh.P.G./1 were not prepared by him nor the notes with blank ink except his signatures. Shameer Girdawar had prepared the same and had also stated that he had made a false statement in Court on oath that the site plans Exh.P.G. and Exh.P.G./1 were in his hand and bore his signatures. Hence he was proceeded against for making the false statement separately.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant had stated that no opportunity was afforded to the appellant to engage a counsel and on the same day the notice was issued, charge was framed and the appellant was convicted. The proper opportunity was not afforded to the appellant to contest the charge and the proceedings have been conducted in one day without giving opportunity to the appellant. This is abuse of the process of the Court.

5. In view of the abovesaid infirmity I accept this appeal and set aside the conviction recorded against the appellant and the case is remanded to the learned trial Court. It is open to him to proceed or not to proceed against the appellant after considering expediency of the proceedings. Appeal allowed. N.H.Q./M-97/L Case remanded.