1991 PCr (PLP)

The facts leading to this revision application are that Rao Munawar Hayat and Mian Tanveer Alam, petitioners,, are practising lawyers at Toba Tek Singh. The allegations are that on 5-7-1984, they interfered in the judicial working of Senior Civil Judge, Toba Tek Singh, and when he took action under section 228, P.P.C., they escaped from the Court room. The learned Senior Civil Judge issued them notice for proceedings against them under sections 186, 228, 179, 466 and 225-B, P.P.C. and thereafter he decided to file a complaint before the Court of competent jurisdiction. So complaint Exh.P.14 was prepared and forwarded for trial to the Magistrate concerned. The petitioners were charge-sheeted. They denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

2. Muhammad Ilyas, Senior Civil Judge, appeared as P.W.1. He supported the allegations against the petitioners and also proved the complaint lodged by him. In his statement before the trial Court, he stated that on 5-7-1984, he was hearing the judicial cases when the petitioners interrupted in rude manner and insisted that the case of Tanveer Alam, Advocate/petitioner should be heard first and when he was warned not to interfere in the judicial proceedings, Tanveer Alam, Advocate, went out of the Court room grumbling. At 3-00 p.m. when their case was called, both the petitioners appeared and started arguing the case simultaneously and when the judgment was announced, they did not stop but started arguments afresh. They were again warned but they did not stop and their conduct remained throughout contumacious. Ultimately, they were asked not to leave the Court room as they were going to be proceeded against under sections 480 of the Cr.P.C. 466, 186 and 128, P.P.C. On this, they escaped from the Court room.

3. When examined under section 342, Cr.P.C. the petitioners denied all the incriminating circumstances. They produced Muhammad Aslam, Advocate, Member, Bar Council Punjab as D.W.1, Amanullah Khan Niazi, Chairman Executive Committee, Punjab Bar Council D.W.2, Rana Zafar-ur-Rehman, Advocate, D.W.3, Muhammad Sharif Advocate D.W.4 and Ch. Ijaz Ahmad Advocate D.W.5.

4. The trial Court convicted the petitioners under sections 186, 228 and 225-B, P.P.C. and sentenced them to three months' S.I. under section 186, P.P.C six months' S.I. under section 228, P.P.C. and to six months' S.I. under section 225-B, P.P.C. with the direction that the sentences shall run consecutively. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Toba Tek Singh, vide his judgment, dated 7-9-1985, set aside the conviction of the petitioners under sections 186 and 22_5-B, P.P.C. and maintaining the conviction of the petitioners under section 228, P.P.C., he reduced the sentence of six months' S.I. to imprisonment already undergone. Feeling still dissatisfied, the petitioners have filed the present revision application.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the defence evidence has not been properly appreciated by the Courts below; that the petitioners/advocates have denied the allegations and that instead of sentencing the petitioners/accused to imprisonment already undergone, the learned Sessions Judge should have acquitted them. The learned State counsel has supported the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. .

6. I have considered the matter carefully. I find that on the prosecution side, only Senior Civil Judge has supported the allegations against the petitioner, which accepted do constitute the offence punishable under section 228, P.P.C. On the other hand, the petitioners, who are also Officers of the Court, have denied the allegations. On the side of the prosecution, only Senior Civil Judge has appeared as P.W.1. The other persons present in the Court room at the time of the incident were not produced by the prosecution. On the other hand, the petitioners have produced five witnesses in defence. Muhammad Aslam Advocate D.W.1 stated that he had not received any complaint against the petitioners during his tenure. Amanullah Khan Niazi, Advocate D.W.2 stated that he was the Chairman, Executive Committee Punjab Bar Council for the last 10 years and he never received any complaint oral or in writing against the conduct of the petitioners. Zafar-ur-Rehman D.W.3 claims to be present at the eventful time in the Court room. He stated that the petitioners had submitted application for the inspection of files before the Senior Civil Judge, Toba Tek Singh, who by that time had not written the judgment although the same had been announced. On this Tanveer Alam, Advocate/petitioner said that according to the Rules, the judgment has to be written before its announcement. On this, the Senior Civil Judge said that he was Senior Civil Judge and did not care for such Rules. According to this witness, the petitioners then left the Court room. Ch. Muhammad Sharif Advocate D.W.4 made the similar statement. Ch. Ijaz Ahmad Advocate D.W.5 stated that he had been the President of District Bar Council, Toba Tek Singh. He never received any oral or written complaint against the petitioner and their conduct remained good throughout.

7. In this view of the matter, I feel that the evidence on both the sides is equally balanced. It is well-settled that when the evidence produced by the parties is equally balanced then the benefit of doubt should go to the favourite child of law i.e. the accused.

8. For what has been said above, the revision is accepted and giving the petitioners benefit of doubt, the conviction and sentence is set aside and they are acquitted of the charge. N.H.Q./M-2958/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision accepted.