1988 P Cr (PLP)

(b) Prosecution for certain offences.‑‑ Against public justice‑‑ of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the same Code; namely, sections 193, 194, 195, 196, 199, 200, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to any proceeding in any Court, except on the complaint in writing of such Court or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate; or (e) Prosecution for certain offences relating to documents given in evidence.‑‑ Of any offence described in section 463, or pubishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476 of the same Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed by a party to any proceeding in any Court in respect of a 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. (2) In clauses (b) and (c) of subsection (1), the term "Court" includes a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, but does not include a Registrar or Sub‑Registrar under the Registration Act, 1908."

5. It may be noticed that subsection (1) of section 195, Cr.P.C. provides that no Court shall take cognizance inter alia in respect of any offence punishable under sections 193, 194, 195, 196, 199, 200, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, except on the complaint in writing of such Court or of some other Court to which such Court is subordinate, whereas subsection (2) of the above section 195, Cr.P.C. provides that in clauses (b) and (c) of subsection (1). the term "Court" includes a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, but does not include a Registrar or Sub‑Registrar under the Registration Act, 1908.

6. It has been vehemently urged by Mr. K.M. Nadeem, learned counsel for the petitioner, that since the alleged offence falls under section 205, clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 195, Cr.P.C. is very much attracted to and, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge could have taken cognizance upon a complaint of the learned Rent Controller or of a Court to which he was subordinate and not upon a police report.

7. In furtherance of his above submission he has referred to the following cases: ‑ (i) Amir Ahmed Khan v. The State, etc. reported in NLR 1987 Criminal 732, in which the facts were that certain amount was recovered by the Nazir in a Succession Petition in respect of an heir in fatal accident case. It was discovered that one Mst. Rehmat Bibi by impersonating herself as Mst. Aisha, mother of the deceased withdrew certain amount from the High Court in respect of the above fraud. Accordingly proceedings were initiated upon police report, the same were challenged in a petition under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. in this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the petition in respect of the offences under sections 205, 467, 468 and 471, P.P.C. but in respect of the other offences, the petition was not allowed. (ii) Ramchand v. The State and another, reported in P L D 1966 (W.P.) Kar.

207. In the above case, a learned‑Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan at Karachi held that in respect of offence committed under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, the Magistrate could take cognizance of the offence upon a complaint by the officer appointed under the Act and not otherwise, the quashment proceedings were allowed. (iii) Mehdi Ali v. The State, reported in 1986 P Cr. L J 2053, in which a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the quashment proceedings in respect of offence committed in the Court of S.D.M. on the ground that cognizance could not have been taken upon the police report in view of section 195, Cr.P.C. (iv) Ch. Atta Muhammad and 2 others v. The State and another, reported in 1981 P Cr. L J

55. In the above case a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court held that all officers having authority under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act and performing their functions thereunder were revenue officer and ` and not revenue Courts. It was also held that the aforesaid documents containing false statement if filed in revenue proceedings under section 163 of the Land Revenue Act before the Collector, the same will be deemed to have been filed before the revenue record, (v) Assudomal Ramandas Tando Muhammad Khan v. Jhamandas Hotchand Matli, reported in A.I.R. 1940 Sind 100, in which the Sind Chief Court held that Mukhtiarkar holding an enquiry in mutation proceeding is a revenue Court. On the other hand Messrs Makhdoom Abdul Wali and Qamar Mohammad Khan, have referred to the following cases: (i) The State v. Muhammad Younus and another, reported in 1985 P Cr. L J 81, in which a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court while construing section 195 (1) (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code held that Rent Controller is not a Court and as such not legally bound to submit a complaint in writing to Ilaqa Magistrate and that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to acquit the accused on the above ground that the complaint was not made by the Rent Controller to the Ilaqa Magistrate. (ii) Dr. Abdul Aziz v. Anwar Khan and 2 others, reported in 1984 P Cr. L J 1340. In the above case a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court held that the provision of section 195 (1) (c), Cr.P.C. is attracted to when the alleged forged documents are produced in evidence in Civil Court.

8. In may view leaving apart the question that the learned Rent Controller is a persona designata and not a Court, a distinction is to be made between judicial or quasi‑judicial work which a Rent Controller performs when he adjudicates upon a dispute between the litigant parties and his administrative functions. In my view, a Miscellaneous Rent Application under section 10 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance for depositing of rent by a tenant on the allegation that A the landlord is not willing to accept the rent does not involve any adjudication of a dispute between a landlord and a tenant. It is a simpliciter deposit of an amount in a proceeding which cannot be termed to be judicial or quasi‑proceeding.

9. I am inclined to hold that in such a ‑proceeding the learned Rent Controller has no power to go into the question of rate of rent or quantum of rent or into the question as to arrears of rent. This being so, it is simpliciter an application on the administrative side. The alleged forgery was committed not in relation to any proceeding in any Court as intended by clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 195 Cr.P.C. Factually the forgery was committed in non‑judicial proceedings namely, Miscellaneous Application in which the tenant had deposited the rent in which parties were not at issue. In this view of the matter, the clause (b) of subsection (1) of section 195, C r. P. C. is not attracted to. The cases relied upon by Mr. K . M. Nadeem are distinguishable for the reason that in all those cases the alleged offence was committed in a proceeding in a Court or in relation to a proceeding in a Court, which is not the case in the present case. 10 Another aspect which may be mentioned is that factually the S.H.O. had forwarded the verbatim copy of the complaint of the learned Rent Controller to the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken cognizance on the verbatim copy of the complaint of the learned Rent Controller and, therefore factually it is a complaint made by the learned Rent Controller though routed through the police. The petition has no merits and, therefore, it is dismissed. M.Y.H./A‑290/K Petition dismissed.