1984 P Cr (PLP)

5. The complainant produced Rana Abdullah Khalid Dispenser, Camp Jail, Lahore (P. W.-1), Muhammad Munir, Assistant, Accounts Branch, High Court, Lahore (P. W.-2), Sabir Hussain Muharrir malkana, Wahdat Colony, Lahore (not numbered), Syed S. M. Ijaz Ali (P. W.-3). The complainant himself was examined as (P. W.-4). Besides his state ment, he produced medico-legal report Exh. P. A., copy of the order of the High Court, dated 12th July, 1974 Exh. P. B., copy of the order of the High Court dated 27th January, 1975 Exh. P. C., whereby the accused were convicted for contempt ; copy of the order of the Supreme Court Exh. P. D. whereby the appeal of Shafqat Ali Chathha S. H. O. against his conviction for contempt of Court was dismissed and copies of reports Nos. 10, 12 and 14, dated 28th June, 1974 Exh. P. E. of Police Station, Wahdat Colony. 6: Nawazish Ali complainant while appearing in Court supported his version as given in his complaint. His father, Syed S. M. Ijaz Ali fully, corroborated his statement. Muhammad Munir was deputed as bailiff to recover Nawazish Ali complainant from the illegal custody of the accused. He deposed that under the order of Mr. Justice Saleem Mazhar, he visited Police Station, on 28th June, 1974 at 1-15 p.m. ; that he was accompanied by the father of the detenu ; that he visited quarter No. M/1 of the Police Station and found the complainant in handcuff; that two Constables were sleeping in the same room ; that the complainant and two other persons who were also in handcuff informed him that they were being kept by Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. that he went to Anwar Ali Muharrir A. S.-I. and after introducing himself asked for the roznamcha, which was delivered by the Muharrir A. S.-I. ; that he examined the roznamcha in order to find out any entry about the custody of the complainant but he did not find any ; that he asked Muharrir A. S.-I. as to who was in possession of the papers against the complainant and was told by the Muharrir that the same were with Zahoor Ahmad A. S -I. ; that report No. 9 was last entry in the roznamcha, dated 28th June, 1974 ; that he met the S. H. O. and Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. in the adjoining room and told them that he wanted to examine the documents in respect of complainant whereupon Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. went to the room of Muharrir A. S.-I. ; that two minutes later he saw Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. running out of the Police Station holding raznamcha in his hand ; that he drew the attention of the S. H. O. to the conduct of Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. and himself wanted to chase him but was held by the S. H. O. who stated that there was nothing to worry and that the roznamcha would be brought back ; that it was 1-45 p.m. whereafter S. H. O. sent a Constable in order to bring back the rozrnamcha and ten minutes later, the Constable brought back the roznamcha ; that on opening the roznamcha he found that report No. 10 in respect of the arrest of the complainant and report No. 11 (a miscellaneous report) had been inserted ; that he asked the S. H. O. to show him the file of Case No. 130/74 in respect of which the arrest of the complainant had been shown and the S. H. O. sent a Constable to Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. to fetch the file ; that at 2-25 p.m. the Constable brought the file stating that he was unable to meet Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. and simultaneously stated that Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. had given him the key of the almirah and he had brought the file from the almirah ; that zimni No. 3 dated 28th June, 1974 was the last zimni in respect of the arrest of the complainant ; that he (bailiff) recorded report No. 12 in the roznamcha giving all the details ; that he asked the Muharrir to hand- over the copies of reports Nos. 10, 11 and 12 and while those copies were being prepared, D. S. P. Bajwah entered the room of the S. H. O. and he narrated the entire facts to him ; that the S. H. O. told him to come at 5-00 p. m. for the copies as he was leaving the Police Station with the D. S. P. in order to conduct a raid for the arrest of Farid Paracha; that the father of the complainant told him (bailiff) that the complainant be got medically examined who was seriously injured but he informed him that it could be done only under the order of the High Court ; that he again went to the Police Station in order to obtain the copies where Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. met him and threatened him with serious consequences and also threatened him to involve him in a theft case ; that the S. H. O. kept quiet during those threats and at the end pleaded for mercy as Zahoor Ahmad was about to retire soon. He further stated that the accused were convicted by High Court in Criminal Original No. 64 of 1974 (contempt case) and were sentenced to imprison ment and fine.

7. Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. and Shafqat Ali Chathha S.-I. were examined under section 342, Cr. P. C. They denied the prosecu tion allegations. Muhammad Anwar A. S.-I. stated that he did not know as to why the case had been made against him. He added that instead of two Muharrirs, he alone was working for twenty four hours at the Police Station. Shafqat Ali Chathha stated that he did not make any entry in the roznamcha. He stated that he had been convicted for contempt of Court although he was not guilty of such an offence.

8. Four witnesses were examined in defence. Muhammad Ashiq (D. W. 1) and Fateh Ali (D. W. 3) stated that they had not gone to the Police Station, Wahdat Colony with the father of the complainant. State ment of Muhammad Aslam A. S.-I. could not be recorded as he had not prepared the copies of various reports. Zamin Abbas A. S.-I. (D. W. 4) produced the report of case F. I. R. No. 130/74 under section 382, P. P. C. This case was filed as untraced. He stated that zimni No. 2 dated 23rd June, 1974, zimni No. 2-A dated 23rd June, 1974 and Zimni No. 30 dated 28th June, 1974 were prepared by Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. He also produced copies of reports D-4 and D-18.

9. The complainant had produced certified copies of the orders of this Court, dated 12th July, 1974 Exh. P. B. and 28th January, 1975 ExH. P. C. It was clear from the certified copy Exh. P. B. that this Court issued notices to Zahoor Abroad A. S.-I., Shafqat Ali Chathha S.-I. and Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. in the following terms :- "Zahoor Ahmad, S.-I. That in the presence of the bailiff in the Police Station Wahdat Colony, Lahore, with a view to defeat the order of this Court, he took away the roznamcha outside the Police Station with an ulterior motive and recorded report No. 10 therein regarding the arrest of Nawazish Ali, giving the time as 11-00 a. m. on 28th June, 1974,.the day bailiff raided the Police Station and he also wrote zimni No. 3, dated 28th June, 1974 of the arrest of Nawazish Ali even though the said person was with him since 22nd June, 1974 as alleged in the petition, and which prima facie proves to be correct, and that he also threatened the bailiff of this Court with the registra tion of a false case of theft against him. By reason of the above, he is prima facie guilty of the contempt of this Court." "S.-I. Shafqat Ali Chathha, S. H. O. That in spite of the fact that the bailiff brought the factum of the taking away of the roznnmcha by A. S.-I, Zahur Ahmad, for making false entries therein, to his notice, yet he failed to take any action in the matter, that when the bailiff tried to run after the A. S.-I. Zahur Ahmad for taking back the roznamcha, he caught hold of the bailiff from his arm and thus abstained him from going after the A. S.-I. Zahur Ahmad. Moreover, by misusing his position as S. H. O. of the Police Station, he recorded report No. 14, dated 28th June, 1974, in the roznamcha making certain allegations against the bailiff of this Court with a view to make a defence for himself, A. S.-I. Zahur Ahmad and Muharrir A. S.-I. Muhammad Anwar for their illegal acts. By reason of the above, it is obvious that he is not only an abettor of the offence but he has also actually worked illegally for A. S.-I. Zahur Ahmad and Muharrir A. S.-I. to save them and also himself and that this act of him was also to defeat the order of this Court. He is, therefore, prima facie guilty of the contempt of this Court." "Muhammad Anwar Moharrir, A. S.-I. That he also failed to take any action in the matter when the roznamcha was taken away from him by A. S.-I. Zahur Ahmad outside the Police Station with a view to making certain wrong and bogus entries therein about the arrest or otherwise of Nawazish Ali, for which purpose the bailiff had raided the Police Station. He has also abetted the offence by helping A. S.-I. Zahur Ahmad in handing over the roznamcha to him with a view to defeating the order of this Court. He is, therefore, prima facie guilty of the contempt of this Court." It stood proved from Exh. P. C. that the three contemners, namely, Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I., Shafqat Ali Chathha S.-I. and Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. were convicted for contempt of Court and each of them was sentenced to undergo S.-I. for two months and a fine of rupees five hundred each or in default in payment of fine to suffer further S.-I. for one month. The three contemners filed appeal before the Supreme Court. The appeal of Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. had abated on account of his death. The appeal of Shafqat Ali Chathha S.-I. was dismissed while that of Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. was accepted for the reason that there was nothing to show that he was also a party to the collusion between his two seniors and was instrumental in allowing Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. to slip away from the Police Station alongwith roznamcha. It was further observed by the Supreme Court that the Muharrir acted under the order of the S. H. O. in giving the roznamcha to Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. who had been deputed to fetch the same. The appellate Court set aside the conviction of Muhammad Anwar A. S.-I. and Shafqat Ali Chathha S.-I. under section 323, P. P. C. because the statement of the complainant remained uncorroborated, as the doctor, who medically examined the complainant, was not produced in Court and besides, the medico-legal report was not legally proved as the requirements of sections 32 and 33 of the Evidence Act were not satisfied. It was also observed that no attempt was made to examine the process-server, who was deputed to effect the service of Dr. Shafqat-ur-Rehman, Medical Officer, Camp Jail, Lahore, who had medically examined to complainant. The conviction and sentence of both the accused under section 330, P. P. C. was set aside on the ground that there was no evidence on the record to show that the accused had made any effort to extract any confession from the complainant. As regards offence under section 392/109, P, P. C., it was observed by the appellate Court that it appeared to have been committed by Zahoor Ahmad (since dead) who alone had taken out the amount of rupees thirty from the complainant's pocket. Shafqat Ali Chathha S.-I. was acquitted of the charges under section 343, P. P. C. on the ground that it was Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. who had brought the complainant from Naqsha Bus Stop to the Police Station and by his mere presence at the Police Station, the S. H. O. could not be blamed for the sins of his subordinate staff. It was further observed by the appellate Court that although the complainant charged the S. H. O. for having directed Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. to take money from him, yet it could not be an adequate reason to hold that he shared the same intent, neglect, or carelessness, which either of his co-appellants Muhammad Anwar Mubarrir A. S.-I. or Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. had shown in this context. There was another observation that even otherwise to show that S. H. O. was keen to. get rupees thirty from the complainant was something unusual and that it was too paltry an amount for which his animous could not be assumed. It was also observed that Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. was guilty for wrongfully confining the com plainant from Naqsha Bus Stop to the Police Station and thereafter, Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. was responsible for the wrongful confinement for the remaining period.

10. The appellate Court bad referred cases titled Allah Ditta v. The State (P L D 1958 S C 290) and Muhammad Siddique and another v. The State (1974 P Cr. L J 180) and came to the conclusion that the requirements of sections 32 and 33 of Evidence Act had not been satisfied and thus the medico-legal report was not legally proved.

11. It was contended by the learned counsel for Muhammad Anwar A. S. I. that on the basis of the statements of Nawazish Ali complainant and his father, the conviction of Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. could not be maintained ; that the complainant had made allegation against the other Constables but they were not prosecuted ; that the function of the Muharrir A. S.-I. was to sit in the office and record reports in the roznamcha and thus he could riot move out of the Police Station and the complainant's version was false that he was apprehended by Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. at Naqsha Bus Stop ; and that by taking the complainant to the Police Station, Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. was not guilty of wrongful restraint.

12. The learned counsel for Nawazish Ali complainant submitted that the medico-legal report was a public document and it stood proved in accordance with law and it was wrongfully discarded by the appellate Court. He referred to sections 74, 76, and 79 of the Evidence Act. He further contended that even if any irregularity had been committed in not examining the process server it had not occasioned miscarriage of justice and since no objection had been taken up about the non-production of process-server, the defect, if any, was curable under section 537, Cr. P. C. As regards the merits, it was submitted that the appellants had been wrongfully acquitted of the charges under sections 323, 330, 343, 392 and 109, P. P. C. He canvassed that even if a person is robbed of a single rupee, he is guilty of offence under section 392, P. P. C. The learned counsel for Shafqat Ali. Chathha submitted that the conviction under section 323, P. P. C. could not be sustained as the medical certificate was not legally proved ; that Shafqat Ali Chathha was successful to proving his alibi ; that no evidence was led to prove offence under section 330, P. P. C. ; that the appellate Court rightly acquitted him of all the charges.

13. It was submitted by learned counsel appearing for State that the grounds given by the appellate Court for the acquittal of Shafqat Ali Chathha S. H. O. were sound, that in the presence of sections 32 and 33, 74, 76 and 79 of the Evidence Act referred by the learned counsel for the complainant had no application.

14. The occurrence took place on 22nd June, 1974. As stated by Syed Nawazish Ali complainant. he was returning to his house from cinema house and when he reached near Naqsha Bus Stop, Muhamm8d Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. and two other persons, who were in plain clothes, stopped him and made an attempt to rob him of rupees thirty but he did not allow them to succeed in their design. The complainant was resident of Shah Jamal Colony. He had no previous ill-will against the three Police officers. Even the Police officers failed to show as to why the complainant had made out case against them. They had no answer to that question. It vas stated by the complainant that he was taken to the Police Station and at the instance of Shafqat Ali Chathha S. H. O., Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. robbed him of rupees thirty. There was no occasion for the complainant to level a false allegation against the three accused. It was further stated by the complainant that he was illegally confined at the Police Station. His version received corroboration from the statement of his father and Muhammad Munir bailiff who was absolutely a disinterested witness. It had been brought on the record that the father of the complainant filed habeas corpus petition bearing No. 473-H-74, which came up before his Lordship Mr. Justice Saleem Mazhar and a bailiff was deputed to recover the detenu vide order, dated 28th June, 1974. The bailiff visited the Police Station Wahdat Colony and found the complainant in handcuff in Quarter No. M/1 of Police Station and there was no entry in the roznamcha before his arrival at Police Station, in respect of the arrest of the complainant. Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. recorded report No. 10 in the roznamcha and Shafqat Ali Chathha S. H. O. abetted him in making such an entry. The three accused were convicted for contempt of Court vide order, dated 28th May, 1975 and sentenced to undergo S.-1. for two months and a fine of rupees five hundred each. The appeal of Zahoor Ahmad had abated on account of his death. The appeal filed by Shafqat Ali Chathha was dismissed by the Supreme Court, whereas the appeal of Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. was accepted. The father of the complainant was anxious for the release of his son. While appearing as (P. W. 3) before the trial Court he stated that he visited Police Station Wahdat Colony on 23rd June, 1974 when his son Nawazish Ali complainant did not come back from the cinema house. He further stated in Court that he met Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. and asked about his son who replied that he was at the Police Station but when he asked about the offence, the Muharrir A. S.-I. told him to sit at the Police Station. He further stated that he took along two/four persons of mohallah and approached Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. and Chathha Thanedar but with no success and ultimately he was constrained to file writ petition, on 26th June, 1974 when he was shocked to see swelling on the body of his son. He further stated that he accompanied the bailiff to Quarter No. M/1 on 28th June, 1974 and found his son illegally confined. He fully corroborated the statement of Nawazish Ali complainant and Muhammad Munir bailiff. He also stated that under the order of the High Court Nawazish Ali was medically examined and nine injuries were found on his person. There is also a mention in para. No. 1 of the order, dated 12th July, 1974 Exh. P. B. "On the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner I directed the doctor Incharge of the Camp Jail; Lahore to medically examine Nawazish Ali, as it was alleged that the Police during his detention had manhandled and had given him severe beating. The doctor examined Nawazish Ali, on 2nd July, 1974 and had submitted his report. According to the report Nawazish Ali had nine injuries of the duration of ten-fifteen days, which period corresponds to the detention period." Similar observation was made by His Lordship in para. No. 5 of order dated 28th October, 1975 Exh. P. C. that the Jail Doctor examined Nawazish Ali detenu on 2nd July, 1974 and submitted his report to this Court and that according to his report the duration of the injuries sustained by the detenu was ten/fifteen days and which corresponded with his detention period. It is provided in section 32 of the Evidence Act, "Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found. or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases." Further, relevant provision would be section 32 (2) of the Evidence Act which reads as under :- "When the statement was made by such person in the ordinary course of business, and in particular when it consists of any entry or memorandum made by him in books kept in the ordinary course of business, or in the discharge of professional duty or of an acknowledgment written or signed by him of the receipt of money goods, securities or property of any kind, or of a document used in commerce written or signed by him, or of the date of a letter or other document usually dated, written or signed by him." Section 32 of the Evidence Act simply states that the statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts, made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense, which under the circumstances of the case appears to the Court un reasonable, are themselves relevant facts. Section 33 of the Evidence Act is for a different purpose. It is provided in the said section." Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorise by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later state or the same judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts, which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable". Three provisos have been added to section 33, firstly, that the proceeding was between the same parties or their representa tives in interest, secondly, that the adverse party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity to cross-examine; and thirdly, that the questions in issue were substantially the same in the first as in the second proceeding. An explanation has also been added to section 33 stating,' a criminal trial or inquiry shall be deemed to be a proceeding between the prosecutor and the accused within the meaning of this section." The facts of the case Allah Ditta v. The State were that the Sessions Judge transferred the statement of a witness recorded by the committing Magistrate to Sessions file under section 33 of the Evidence Act on the statement of the Investigating Officer who had no personal knowledge of the whereabouts of the witness and who had not gone in search of, or to execute the summon on the witness and who made statement before the Court that the witness could not be served in spite of his best effort. The Sessions Judge ascertained from the defence counsel and the defence counsel had no objection to the transfer of the said statement. It was held that the Court had misapplied section 33, of the Evidence Act. The facts of that case were quite distinguishable from the facts of this case. In the above-referred case the statement of a witness recorded by the committing Magistrate was transferred to Sessions file under section 33 of the Evidence Act on the statement of the Investigating Officer who did not speak from his personal knowledge regarding the uncertainty of the whereabouts of the witness Lala. In the second case Muhammad Siddique and another v. The State the statements of Lady Doctor Zahida Ijaz and Dr. Sajjad-ul -Qayyum were excluded from consideration on the ground that no attempt seemed to have been made in examining the Police official who was entrusted with the service of summons issued in the names of two doctors to prove his report about their absence from the country with no immediate prospect of their returning. In the instant case, the complainant was medically examined by Dr. Shafqat-ur-Rehman, who was posted as Medical Officer Camp Jail, Lahore. It was reported by Superintendent Camp Jail, Lahore, on 8th June, 1978 that Dr. Shafqat-ur-Rehman had left the country after his transfer from the Jail. Rana Abdullah Khalid. Dispenser, Camp Jail,. Lahore (P. W. 1) while appearing in Court stated that the doctor who medically examined Nawazish Ali complainant was posted in Saudi Arabia in connection with his service abroad and was out of Pakistan at the time of making the statement. This statement was not challenged in cross-examination and his statement was accepted by the accused. It was not the case of the accused that the doctor was still in Pakistan at the time when Rana Abdullah Khalid (P. W. 1) made state ment. Rana Abdullah Khalid stated in Court that according to the medico-legal report, Nawazish Ali had nine injuries on his person. The said witness had brought the original report. He proved the handwriting and signature of Dr. Shafqat-ur-Rehman. He also compared the entry and certified copy Exh. P. A. with the original entry in the register. Admittedly, the register as maintained by Dr. Shafqat-ur-Rehman was a public document. Public document has been defined in section 74 of the Evidence Act. Chapter V of the Evidence Act deals with the documentary evidence. It is provided in section 61 of the Evidence Act that the contents of document may be proved either by primary or secondary evidence, Primary evidence has been defined as document itself produced for the in spection of the Court. Secondary evidence means and includes certified copies made from the original by mechanical process which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy and copies compared with such copies, copies made from or compared with the original etc. In the present case, the complainant had led the primary evidence by producing the original register of medico-legal report. Certified copy Exh. P. A. had been placed on the record and Rana Abdullah Khalid (P. W. 1) compared the certified copies with the original and stated that it was the correct copy. Secondary evidence is permissible under section 65 (e) of the Evidence Act. In the instant case the complainant had led the primary as well as secondary evidence in producing the original medico-legal register as well as its certified copy. Requirements of section 67 of the Evidence Act had been met when the said witness stated that the relevant entry contained the signature of Dr. Shafqat-ur-Rehman and he could recognize the signature. Presumption of genuineness was attached to the medico-legal report under the provision of section 79 of the Evidence Act. It is provided in section 79 of the Evidence Act, "The Court shall presume to be genuine every document purporting to be a certificate, certified copy or other document, which is by law declared to be admissible as evidence of any particular fact and which purports to be duly certified by any officer o the Central Government, or of a Provincial Government, or by any office in an Acceding State or non-Acceding State who is duly authorised threat by the Central Government, to be genuine: Provided that such document is substantially in the form and purports to be executed in the manner directed by law in that behalf. The Court shall also presume that any officer by whom any such document purports to be signed or certified, held, when he signed it, the official character which he claims in such paper." In view of the aforesaid provisions of the Evidence Act, the Court was competent to look into the medico-legal report of Nawazish Ali complainant. The statement of Nawazish Ali was corroborated by the medico-legal report. Even if the said medico-legal report was kept out of consideration on account of the objection of the learned counsel for the accused, the statement of the complainant received corroboration from the statement of Syed S. M. Ijaz Ali. Muhammad Munir bailiff also stated in Court that the father of the complainant had made a request for medical examination of the complainant who was seriously injured but he replied that it was not possible without the order of the High Court, as the complainant was in Police custody. Hurt has been defined in section 319, P. P. C. It is provided in the said section that whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. It is not necessary that in fact, there should be marks of violence. If a person causes bodily pain to another person he is guilty of causing hurt. In the instant case the complainant had clearly stated that he was beaten by the three accused and he suffered bodily pain. The statement of the complainant did not need any corroboration as he was disinterested against the accused. Even if the medico-legal report was kept out of consideration on legal objection, the charge of causing hurt stood proved. against Shafqat Ali Chathha and Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. The appellate Court had taken an erroneous view in acquitting Shafqat Ali Chathha S.-I and Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. of the charge under section 323, P. P. C. So far as offence under section 323, P. P. C. was concerned, the appeal filed by Nawazish Ali complainant is accepted against Shafqat Ali Chathha and Muhamnad Anwar Muharrir A. S..I. Both of them shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and a fine of Rupees five hundred each or in default in payment of fine to suffer S.-I. for two It also stood proved from evidence that Nawazish Ali complainant was kept in illegal custody by the three Police officers from 22nd June, 1974 till 28th June, 1974 without any justification. He had been wrongfully confined for more than three days. Shafqat Ali Chathha S.-I. and Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I were rightly convicted under section 343, P. P. G. The appellate order in respect of the acquittal of Shafqat Ali Chathha S.-I., from offence under section 343, P. P. C. is se aside. The order of the appellate Court whereby the conviction of Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. was altered from section 343 to section 342, P. P. C., is also set aside. Both Shafqat Ali Chathha S.-I. and Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. are convicted under section 343, p. P. C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years' each and a fine of Rupees one thousand each or in default in payment of fine to suffer S.-I. for three months.

15. There was ample evidence on record to show that at the instance of Shafqat Ali Chathha, Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. had robbed of the complainant of rupees thirty. Case against Shafqat Ali Chathha under section, 392/109, P. P. C. stood proved. The order of acquittal of Shafqat Ali Chathha, passed by the appellate Court in respect of offence under section 392/109, P. P. C., is set aside. He shall suffer rigorous imprison ment for two years' and a fine of rupees one thousand or in default S.-I. for three months under section 392/ 109, P. P. C. Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. had made an attempt to commit offence under section 392, P. P. C. and was thus guilty under section 392 read with section 511, P. P. C. He is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of rupees five hundred or in default in payment of fine to suffer S.-I. for two months. The substantive sentences of Shafqat Ali Chathha S.-I. and Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. shall run concurrently. The entire amount of fine, if recovered, shall be paid to Nawazish Ali complainant as compensation. No lenient view could be taken on account of delay in the disposal of the case as the accused themselves were responsible for the delayed disposal. They did not allow the trial Court to complete the trial at an early date. They had been sending medical certificates and had been making requests for adjourn ments. The trial Court, with great difficulty, was able to complete the trial in a period of nearly six years.

16. The acquittal of Shafqat Ali Chathha S. H. O. and Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. from offence under section 330, P. P. C. was justified as from the evidence, no case under the said offence was made out. M. Z. M. Order accordingly.