Mudassar Riaz Vs The State etc.

Stereo. H C J D A 38.

Stereo. H C J D A 38.

Judgment Sheet

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT LAHORE

JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

Crl. Revision No.59428 of 2024 (Mudassar Riaz vs. The State etc.)

JUDGMENT

Petitioner by: Ch. Ishtiaq Ahmed Khan, Advocate with petitioner.

Date of hearing: 08.10.2026

State by: Mr. Muhammad Atif Rao, DPG.

Complainant by: Nemo.

Muhammad Amjad Pervaiz, J. Through this criminal revision, filed under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C."), the petitioner has assailed the legality of the order dated 08.07.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad (hereinafter referred to as "learned ASJ"), whereby, cognizance of an offence under Section 193 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "P.P.C.") was taken against the petitioner and respondents No.2 to 11 under Section 195 read with Section 476, Cr.P.C., on an application moved by Attique ur Rehman, Reader Sessions Courts, Faisalabad (respondent No.12.)

2.The facts, in brief, giving rise to the instant criminal revision are that four complaints were lodged against respondent No.11, Maqsood Kalyar, Ex-Senior Clerk/Reader in the Sessions Court, Faisalabad. It was alleged that he had received substantial sums of money from the complainants on the pretext of securing their appointment as Junior Clerks in the Sessions Court, Faisalabad, but had subsequently handed over forged appointment letters to them. On receipt of the complaints, the

Crl.Revision No.59428 of 2024

learned District and Sessions Judge, Faisalabad recorded the statements of the complainants and their witnesses, dispensed with a regular inquiry, and issued a show-cause notice to respondent No.11. Thereafter, vide order dated 17.08.2020, the major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon him.

3.Respondent No.11 assailed the said order before the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which, vide order dated 15.03.2024, accepted his appeal, reinstated him in service and remanded the matter to the Department for holding a regular inquiry. In compliance with the Tribunal's directions, the Department initiated a regular departmental inquiry against respondent No.11 under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1999"), and duly charge-sheeted him. During the course of the inquiry, the Departmental Representative produced the witnesses/complainants, who recanted from their earlier statements and denied having paid any bribe to, or having received fake appointment letters from, respondent No.11. In view of this development, Mr. Attique-ur-Rehman, the Departmental Representative, moved an application seeking initiation of proceedings against the respondents for giving false evidence. Upon said application, learned ASJ passed the impugned order, operative part whereof is reproduced as under:- “In the circumstances, prima facie, the respondents have committed offence of giving false evidence in the inquiry proceedings which, in the light of Rule 14(2) of E & D Rules, 1999, would be deemed to be judicial. The Departmental Representative Mr. Attique-ur-Rehman has filed an application for initiating criminal proceedings against the respondents for offence of giving false evidence. Upon said application, I, the Inquiry Officer/Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, take the

Crl.Revision No.59428 of 2024

cognizance under Section 476 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 195 of Cr.P.C. for offence under Section 193 of P.P.C. read with Rule 14(2) of Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999 and try the above respondents”

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is contrary to law and is not sustainable; that the learned ASJ did not have the jurisdiction to proceed in terms of Section 195 read with 476 Cr.P.C. He placed reliance upon the case titled “Babu Khan v. The State” (2023 P.Cr.L.J. 56).

5.Learned Deputy Prosecutor General has supported the impugned order and submits that the same is perfectly legal, respondents having resiled from their stance in the affidavits submitted earlier were liable to be proceeded against for giving false evidence.

6.Arguments heard. Record perused.

7.The proposition of law emerging out of the above factual matrix is formulated as under:- “Whether learned ASJ, while acting as Inquiry Officer has had jurisdiction to take cognizance of an offence under Sections 193 P.P.C in terms of sections 195 & 476 of Cr.P.C. by virtue of Rule 14(2) of the Rules, 1999?” To better appreciate the controversy, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant statutory provisions; Section 193, P.P.C. — Punishment for false evidence; “Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

195.(1) Cr.P.C. No Court shall take cognizance: --

(a)Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants: Of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 187 of the Pakistan Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public

Crl.Revision No.59428 of 2024

servant concerned, or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate;

(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

(c)Prosecution for certain offences relating to documents given in evidence : Of any offence described in Section 463 or punishable 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 sub-section (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.

(3)For the purposes of this section, a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinary, original civil jurisdiction within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such Civil Court, is situate: Provided that—

(a)where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate; and

(b)where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed.

(4)The provisions of sub-section (1), with reference to the offences named therein, apply also to criminal conspiracies to commit such offences and to the abetment of such offences, and attempts to commit them.

(5)Where a complaint has been made under sub-section (1) clause (a), by a public servant, any authority to which such public servant is subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and, if it does so, it shall forward a copy of such order to the Court, and upon receipt thereof by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint.

Section 476, Cr.P.C. — Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195

(1)When any offence referred to in Section 195, sub- section (1), clause(b) or clause (c), has been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, the Court may take cognizance of the offence and try the same in accordance with the procedure prescribed for summary trials in Chapter

XXII.

Crl.Revision No.59428 of 2024

(2)When in any case tried under sub-section (1) the Court finds the offender guilty, it may, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of Section 262-

(a)pass any sentence on the offender authorised by law for such offence, except sentence of death, or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment exceeding five years, if such Court be a High Court, a Court of Session, a District Court or any Court exercising the power of a Court of Session or a District Court;

(b)sentence the offender to simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or to pay a fine not exceeding one thousand rupees, or both, if such Court be a Court of a Magistrate of the First Class, a Civil Court other than a High Court, a District Court or a Court exercising the powers of a District Court, or a Revenue Court no inferior to Court of Collector;

(c)sentence the offender to simple imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month, or to pay a fine not exceeding fifty rupees, or both, if such Court be a Criminal Court or a Revenue Court other than a Court referred to in clause (a) or clause (b).

(3)The powers conferred on Civil, Revenue and Criminal Courts under this section may be exercised in respect of any offence referred to in sub-section (1) and alleged to have been committed in relation to any proceeding in such Court by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (3) of Section 195.

(4)Any person sentenced by any Court under this section may, notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, appeal-

(a)in the case of a sentence by the, High Court, to the Supreme Court;

(b)in the case of a sentence by a Court of Session or District Court, or a Court exercising the powers of a Court of Session-or a District Court, to the High Court; and

(c)in any other case, to the Sessions Judge.

(5)The provisions of Chapter XXXI shall, so far as they are applicable, apply to appeals under this section and the Appellate Court may alter the finding or reduce or enhance the sentence appealed against.

476-A. Forwarding of cases for trial by Courts having jurisdiction: (1) If the Court in any case considers that the person accused of any of the offences referred to in Section 476, sub-section (1), and committed in, or in relation to, any proceedings before it, should not be tried under that section, such Court may, after recording the facts constituting the Offence and the statement of the accused person, as hereinbefore provided, forward the

Crl.Revision No.59428 of 2024

case to a Court having jurisdiction to try the case, and may require security to be given for the appearance of such accused person before such Court, or, if sufficient security is not given, shall forward such person in custody to such Court.

(2)The Court to which a case is forwarded under this section shall proceed to hear the complaint against the accused person in the manner hereinbefore provided.”

8.A bare perusal of section 195 Cr.P.C. reveals that it carves out an exception to the general rule that the criminal law may be set in motion by any person, irrespective of whether he is an aggrieved party or not. It imposes an absolute bar on the Court taking cognizance of the offences mentioned therein, unless there is a complaint in writing by the public servant or the court specified therein.1

9.In this case, learned ASJ has proceeded to assume jurisdiction under Section 476 Cr.P.C. read with Section 195 Cr.P.C. at the anvil of rule 14(2) of the Rules, 1999 which is reproduced herein:-

14.Powers of Inquiry Officer and Inquiry Committee-(1) For the purpose of an inquiry under these rules, the Inquiry Officer and the Inquiry Committee shall have the powers of a Civil Court trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (Act V of 1908), in respect of the following matters, namely: -

(a)summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath:

(b)requiring the discovery and production of documents;

(c)receiving evidence on affidavits; and

(d)issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents;

(2)The proceedings under these rules shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860).

10.Under the above rule, departmental proceedings are deemed to be judicial proceedings by a legal fiction. However, such a deeming provision, by itself, does not confer the status of a “Court” upon the inquiry officer or authority for the purposes of Sections 195 and 476 Cr.P.C. The legal character of a departmental inquiry must be distinguished from that of proceedings conducted by a Court within the contemplation of “Babu Khan v. The State” (2023 P.Cr.L.J. 56)

Crl.Revision No.59428 of 2024

the aforesaid provisions of the Cr.P.C. It must also be borne in mind that the mere name or designation of an authority is not decisive of the question, because, as has been observed in Bahadur’s case “Judges often administer and administrators often judge.”2

11.It is relevant to mention here that similar provisions such as Rule 14(2) ibid, are also available in some other laws, one such law is The Punjab Tribunal of Inquiry Ordinance, 1969, the relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereunder:- “Section 5(1).........

(5)Any proceeding before the Tribunal shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections193 and 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860).

The above provision is in pari materia with rule 14(2) ibid. This provision was interpreted by a full Bench of this Court in Qaiser Iqbal’s case3, the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder:- “The crux of all these judgments is that inquiry commission does not perform any judicial functions. The provision of section 5(5) of the Ordinance, 1969, which imparts to the proceeding before Tribunal, a character of judicial proceedings, only create a fiction, which cannot extent beyond the purpose for which it is created. The Tribunal has no power of adjudication in sense of passing an order which can be enforced "Proprio vigore". There is a clear distinction between a decision which by itself has no force and no penal effect and a decision which become enforceable immediately or which may become enforceable by some action being taken. The Tribunal under the Ordinance 1969 was merely to carry out fact finding probe, record its finding and recommendations without having any power to enforce them. Therefore, we can safely conclude that the inquiry or final report by Tribunal under Ordinance 1969 is not a judicial inquiry in the sense of its being an exercise of judicial function.”

12.In view of the principle enunciated above, the learned ASJ, while acting as the Inquiry Officer, did not possess the requisite attributes of a Court, and the proceedings before him, though deemed to be judicial, were not an exercise of judicial function.

Bahadur and another v. The State and another” (PLD 1985 SC 62) “Province of Punjab v. Qaisar Iqbal and others” (PLD 2018 Lahore 198)

Crl.Revision No.59428 of 2024

13.To better appreciate the proposition, I feel it appropriate to compare Rule 14(2) ibid with various other laws containing significant provisions, which are tabulated as under:-

Prevention of Anti National Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency National Commission of Activities Act, 1974 and Discipline) Rules, 1999 Human Rights, 2012 Prevention of Anti-National 14. Powers of Inquiry Officer and 13. Powers relating to Activities Act, 1974 — Section Inquiry Committee-(1) For the inquiries:- (1) The Commission 5...... `purpose of an inquiry under these shall, while inquiring into "(6) Any proceeding before the rules, the Inquiry Officer and the complaints under this Act, Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Inquiry Committee shall have the have all the powers of a civil judicial proceeding within the powers of a Civil Court trying a court trying a suit under the meaning of sections 193 and 228 suit under the Code of Civil Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 of the Pakistan Penal Code, and Procedure 1908 (Act V of 1908), (Act V of 1908).... the Tribunal shall be deemed to in respect of the following matters, (4) Every proceeding before be a civil court for the purposes namely: - (a) summoning and the Commission shall be of section 195 and Chapter enforcing the attendance of any deemed to be a judicial XXXV of the Code of Criminal person and examining him on proceeding within the meaning Procedure, 1898." oath: (b) requiring the discovery of sections 193, 196 and 228 of and production of documents; (c) the Pakistan penal code, 1860 receiving evidence on affidavits; (Act XLV of 1860).

and (d) issuing commissions for (5) The Commission shall be the examination of witnesses or deemed to be a civil court for documents; the purposes of section 195

(2)The proceedings under these and Chapter XXVI of the rules shall be deemed to be Code of Criminal Procedure, judicial proceedings within the 1898 (Act V of 1898) meaning of sections 193 and 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860).

The expressions highlighted above, namely “...shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXXV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898” are conspicuous by their absence4 from Rule 14(2) of the Rules, 1999. This omission clearly indicates the legislative intent: where the Legislature deemed it appropriate to confer such a status, it did so expressly and unambiguously.

The principles of statutory interpretation are well settled.

Where the words of the statute are unambiguous, the provisions Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation (FGEHF), Islamabad and another v. Malik Ghulam Mustafa and others, 2021 SCMR 201)

Crl.Revision No.59428 of 2024

should be given their plain and normal meaning without adding or rejecting any words. Departure from the literal rule by making structural changes or substituting words in a clear statutory provision, even under the guise of interpretation, poses a great risk, as the changes may not reflect what the legislature intended or desired. The court cannot recast or reframe the legislation because it has no power to legislate. The court cannot add words to a statute or read words into it that are not there unless the principles of statutory interpretation require it. The legislature means what it says and says what it means. It is the obligation of the courts of law to further the clear intendment of the legislature and not to frustrate it by ignoring the same.5

14.After having walked through the comparison of various laws and judicial precedents, I do not entertain any manner of doubt that the learned ASJ while acting as an inquiry officer was not a court within the contemplation of aforesaid provisions of sections 195 and 476 Cr.P.C. Hence, the impugned order is without jurisdiction. It is well settled that jurisdiction is creature of statute; it either must exist in law or not at all. It cannot be assumed, enlarged or validated by agreement or silence of the litigants. It may not be conferred upon any court or tribunal or quasi-judicial forum by consent, acquiescence or waiver or conduct of the parties6. At this stage, it is relevant to reproduce Article 175(1) (2) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Constitution”):- 175(1). There shall be [a Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan, hereinafter referred to as the Federal Constitutional Court] a Supreme Court of Pakistan [hereinafter referred to as the Supreme Court], a High Court for each Province [and a High Court for the Islamabad Capital Territory] and such other courts as may be established by law.

[Explanation –Unless the context otherwise requires, the words “High Court” wherever occurring in the Constitution shall include “Islamabad High Court”]

“Messrs KASSIM TEXTILE MILLS (Pvt.) LIMITED v. COMMISSIONER INLAND

REVENUE, KARACHI (2025 SCMR 1248)

Ghulam Abbas vs. Telephone Industries of Pakistan and 2 others (PLJ 2026 SC 304)

Crl.Revision No.59428 of 2024

(2)No court shall have any jurisdiction save as is or may be conferred on it by the Constitution or by or under any law.

From the above quoted language of this Sub-Article, it is unambiguously clear that a bar, and a prohibition has been placed that "No" Court in Pakistan shall exercise any jurisdiction in any matter brought before it until and unless, such jurisdiction has been conferred upon it by the Constitution itself or under any law. The word "save" appearing in the Sub-Article has clear connotation of the word "except" for the purpose of construing the above, meaning thereby that "No" Court shall have the jurisdiction except as has been conferred upon it by the Constitution and/or law. It is a settled law that any forum or court, which, if it lacks jurisdiction adjudicates and decides a matter, such decision etc. shall be void and of no legal effect.”7

15.The impugned order cannot withstand scrutiny at the anvil of the aforesaid constitutional provision, it is also violative of the inalienable right to be treated in accordance with law, as guaranteed under Article 4 of the Constitution. For sake of convenience, the same is reproduced below:-

4(1): To enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen, wherever he may be, and of every other person for the time being within Pakistan.

(2)In particular:-

(a)no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with law;

(b)no person shall be prevented from or be hindered in doing that which is not prohibited by law; and

(c)no person shall be compelled to do that which the law does not require him to do.

As per above Article to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every person, and no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, S.M.Waseem Ashraf v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M/O Housing and Works, Islamabad and others (2013 SCMR 338).

Crl.Revision No.59428 of 2024

reputation or property of any person can be taken except in accordance with law. The right to be dealt with in accordance with law assured by Article 4 of the Constitution stands at a high pedestal and even outshines fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 9 to 28 of the Constitution, as this right cannot be suspended during the proclamation and imposition of Emergency under Article 233 of the Constitution. Article 4 of the Constitution is the bedrock of the rule of law, and antithesis to the rule of men, in our country. It is a restraint on the executive and judicial organs of the State to abide by the rule of law. No person, authority, tribunal or court exercising executive or judicial powers can take any action against any person in contravention of any law. 8

16.When the impugned order is examined on the touchstone of the aforesaid constitutional and statutory provisions, it becomes manifest that the same suffers from patent illegality, is without lawful authority and has been passed without jurisdiction. The impugned order, therefore, cannot be allowed to remain in the field. Consequently, the instant criminal revision is allowed, and the impugned order dated 08.07.2024 is hereby set aside.

(Muhammad Amjad Pervaiz) Judge

Approved for reporting.

Judge.

This order has been announced on 08.10.2026, dictated, prepared and signed on 19.10.2026.

M.J.Mehmood and Rashid Ali*

Justice Qazi Faez Isa and others v. President of Pakistan and others (PLD (2022 SC 119)