1985 PLP 1396 (MLD)

The facts giving rise to this appeal are that Muhammad Iqbal appellant filed suit against Muhammad Bakhsh for the recovery of money on the basis of pronote before the learned District Judge, Rahimyar Khan. He appeared as a witness and stated that he did not know Rehmat Ullah goldsmith and he was not his pupil. He also examined Syed Musawar Ali Shah and Malik Muhammad Bukhsh as his witnesses who stated that the appellant knew Rehmat Ullah goldsmith. On this the learned District Judge initiated prosecution of the appellant for perjury. The learned Distract judge framed the following charge:- "That you ran 16-10-1984 made a false statement before this Court by saying that Rehmat Ullah goldsmith was not known to you and you were not his pupil whereas you were falsified by your own witness on this point and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under section 193, P.P.C." The charge was read over to the accused and he was asked whether he pleaded guilty to the above charge and have any defence to make. The appellant replied that:- "I know Rehmat Ullah. His son Saif Ullah is working with me. This Rehmat Ullah is on litigating terms in Muhammad Bukhsh defendant." Treating the reply as admission of the offence, the learned District Judge convicted the appellant under section 193, P.P.C., and sentenced him to six months' R.I. hence this appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the answer of the appellant to the question put by the Court, "As to whether he pleaded guilty to the charge does not amount to the admission of the commission of offence and as such there was no legal justification to convict the appellant. Conversely, the learned counsel for the State supported the judgment of the trial Court.

3. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties with care. It appears that the learned District Judge took cognizance of the offence of perjury under section 476, Cr. P.C. and summarily tried the appellant. The learned District Judge could try the appellant accused in accordance with the procedure prescribed for summary trial in Chapter XXII of Cr. P.C. In section 262, Cr.P.C. of Chapter XXII it has been stated that in trial under that Chapter, the procedure prescribed in Chapter XX shall be followed except in cases mentioned therein. Section 243.of Chapter XX may be reproduced:- "Section. 243; Conviction on admission of truth of accusation.--If the accused admits that he had committed the offence with which he is charged his admission shall be recorded as nearly as possible in the words used by him, and if he shows no sufficient cause why he should not be convicted, the Magistrate may convict, him accordingly." From the bare reading of the section it is very much obvious that the learned District Judge could convict him if the accused had admitted that he had committed the offence with which he was charged. It was also the duty of the Court to see that there was no sufficient cause why the accused should not be convicted. The answer given by the appellant accused does not amount to an admission of the commission of offence, particularly when the statement of the witnesses was recorded on 1-10-1984 and he was charged about a month thereafter. It is remarkable that in his answer the accused did not state that he knew Rehmat Ullah at the time of his examination as witness. He stated:- "I know Rehmat Ullah" The possibility that he came to know Rehmat Uallah after his examination and before 15-11-1984 cannot be excluded. It is well-settled that unless an accused person states in a very clear term that he admits that he has committed the offence with which he i7 charged, he cannot be! convicted. For all these reasons I am convinced that the learned District1A Judge could not have recorded conviction of the appellant /accused under section 193, P.P.C. on the strength of answer given by him on 15-11-1984. The learned District. Judge should have proceeded further; in accordance with the procedure laid down in Chapter XX of Cr. P.C.1 For what has been stated above, the impugned judgment is set aside. The case is sent back to the learned District Judge for retrial according to law. The appellant shall be released on bail on furnishing security in the sum of Rs.10,000 to the satisfaction of A.C./Duty Magistrate, Rahimyar Khan. He will remain on bail till the conclusion of the trial. M.A.K. Retrial ordered.