1990 P Cr (PLP)
ZAHID HUSSAIN — Applicant Versus THE STATE and 8 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1990 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ZAHID HUSSAIN — Applicant Versus THE STATE and 8 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 P Cr (PLP) (ZAHID HUSSAIN — Applicant Versus THE STATE and 8 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- I.A. Hashmi for Respondent No.3.
- Gul Zaman Khan for Respondent No.9
- 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Gul Zaman Khan, learned counsel for respondent No.9, has taken a preliminary objection about the maintainability of this application filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. on the ground that the applicant who had a remedy before the trial Court under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. did not avail the same and consequently this application was liable to be dismissed on this score alone. Reliance is placed upon the following authorities:
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 561-A, 265-K & 249-A
Trial Courts powers under section 265-h and 249-A, Cr.P.C. are co-extensive with similar powers of High Court under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. and both can be resorted to
Proper course would be to approach trial Court first, but High Court is not debarred from entertaining an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. directly in an appropriate case.
S. 195(1)
Object of S.195 (1), Cr.P.C. is to prevent improper or reckless prosecutions by private persons for offences in connection with the administration of justice.
S. 195(1)(c)
Condition to be satisfied before invoking provisions of section 195(1)(c) stated.
Ss. 561-A & 195(l:)(c)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.419/420/471/474/467/ 109
Admittedly only copies of disputed documents were placed on record
Section 195(1)(c), cannot operate as a bar as the same refs to a document produced or given in evidence and does not say whether on or its copy should be produced or given in evidence.-- Application under section 561-A, Cr Y.C. was consequently dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
(ii) Lal and 2 others v. The State 1986 M L D 1190 (iii) Muhammad Shafiq and 2 others v. Merajuddin and another 1987 M L D 1518. (iv) Haji Allahditto and 5 others v. The State and another 1987 M L D 1561.
3. The answer to this objection is furnished by the Supreme Court in the case of Mio Munir Ahmad v The State, reported in 1985 SCMR 257, wherein following observations were made: "The powers of the trial Court under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. and section 265-K, Cr.P.C. are co-extensive with the similar powers of the High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. and both can be resorted to. It would of course be proper to approach the trial Court in the first instance, but there is nothing to bar the High Court from entertaining in any appropriate case, an application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. directly."
4. On merits the applicant has got no case. Section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. which is relevant to the point in issue reads as follows: "195(1). No Court shall take cognizance. (a) ................................................................................................... (b) (c) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471 section 475 or section .176 of the same Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any Court in respect document produced or given in evidence in such proceeding, except on the complaint in writing of such Court, or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate:
5. The object of this provision of law is to prevent improper or reckless prosecutions by private persons for offences in connection with the administration of justice. To attract the applicability of clause (c), the fulfilment of following requirements is necessary: (i) That the offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any Court. (ii) That the offence is committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence. (iii) That the said offence falls under section 463 or 471 or 475 or 476, P.P.C. It is, however, essential that all these conditions should be satisfied before invoking the provisions of section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C.
6. Admittedly only copies of the disputed documents are placed on record. Clause (c) refers to a document produced or given in evidence, it doe, rot say whether original or copy of the document should be produced or given in D evidence. This question was, however, examined by the Supreme Court in Criminal Petition No.48-K of 1984 (Abdul Sattar and another v. The Sate and another) decided on 3rd March, 1985, and it was held: "Section 195(1)(c), however, contemplates the producing or giving in evidence of the original document and not a copy thereof. Abdul Sattar in his suit had stated in the plaint that " ... the plaintiff purchased the same from the defendant, the plaintiff files the copy of the agreement of sale and marks the same Annexure `B'. Since what was produced was only a copy and not the original documents, the preconditions to the applicability of the bar under section 195(1)(c), Cr.P.C. cannot be said to have been met:"
7. In arriving at the above finding the Supreme Court followed the case of Sanumukhsing v. King, reported in PLD 1949 P.C.
207. The relevant observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council arc as under: "For upon a further examination of them it is clear that the documents in question were not in fact produced or given in evidence in the Lahore Court, but on the contrary there were produced in that Court documents which purported to be copies (but without the names of the executants) of the documents alleged to be forged. In these circumstances their Lordships think it plain that section 195(1)(c) cannot operate as bar."
8. In view of the above weighty observations of the Supreme Court, the following cases cited on behalf of applicant are not relevant: (i) Muhammad Ehsan v The State P L D 1908 La h. 451. (ii) The State v. S. Ali Hasan and another P L D 1974 Kar. 403. (iii) Qaim Din and 3 others v. The State and another 1977 P Cr. L J 465. (iv) Mst. Aisha Bai v. The State and another 1981 P Cr. L J 338. (v) Nusrat Hussain and 2 others v The Slate 1988 P Cr. L J 1218.
9. In the result the application filed under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. fails and is dismissed accordingly. N.H.Q./Z-119/K Petition dismissed.