Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 195

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S.195---Physical remand, request for---Request for physical remand of the accused was turned down and he was discharged---Held: that record showed that accused had been nominated in the FIR for preparing false and forged agreement to sell the property of late mother of complainant---Judicial Magistrate discharged the accused on the ground that matter was sub-judice between the parties on civil side, where the alleged document was used for obtaining stay orders---Court is the competent forum to proceed under S.195, Cr.P.C, if the document is found to be false and ficticious---Private person is barred by S.195, Cr.P.C to make any complaint in such regard---Standard of proof required in the two proceedings is entirely different---Civil cases are decided on preponderance of evidence, while in a criminal case, the entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable doubt has to be given---Moreover, there is neither any statutory provision nor any legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be treated as final or binding in the other, as both cases have to be decided based on the evidence adduced therein---Section 195, Cr.P.C will be attracted only when the offenses enumerated in the said provision have been committed concerning a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court---Existence of the document was not denied---Admittedly, the document had not been produced or given in evidence--Thus, the findings of the Judicial Magistrate were perverse and against the law---Impugned orders were set aside and matter was remanded to decid the same afresh---Petition stood disposed of accordingly.ORDERAALIA NEELUM, J.---Through the instant petition, under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 12.12.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate Section-30, District Courts, Lahore, have been challenged, whereby the accused/respondent No.5 was discharged from the case for insufficient incriminating material regarding the accused's implication.2.    Heard. Record…