Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 247, 537

  Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 247 & 537 [as amended by. Code of Criminal Procedure (West Pakistan Amend ment) Act (XVIII of 1964), S. 23]---Absence of complainant (a police officer) causing no prejudice to accused in his defence-Irregularity, if any, cured----Trial, held, not vitiated. State v. R. V. Mahmood Ghasi Musalman and another A I R 1962 Raj. 1; Devi Singh and another v. Shiv Ram Singh A I R 1960 Raj. 150; State of Madhaya Pradesh v. Abdul Kadir Khan A I R 1963 Madh. Prad. 125; Public Prosecutor v. A. V. Ramiah A I R 1958 Andh. Prad. 392; Jai Prakash v. State A I R 1961 All. 377; Chiragh Din v. Emperor A I R 1925 Lah. 258; Emperor v. Ghulam Hussain A I R 1925 Lah. 237; Abdus Subhan and others v. The State 1968 P Cr. L J 263 and Public Prosecutor v. Ratnavelachelty A I R 1926 Mad. 865 ref.   JUDGMENT The simple facts giving rise to this Cr. Revision are that on 17-7-1966, a case under section 380, P. P. C. was registered at Qila Gujar Singh Police Station against two persons, Tajammal Nasir and Muhammad Bashir, at the instance of Muhammad Younas petitioner, who lodged report Exh. P. A. alleging theft of some articles of furniture such as chairs, tables, planks etc, The case was investigated by Muhammad Shah A. S. I. of that Police Station who came to the conclusion that the allegations were false and were made with a view to avoid payment of a sum of Rs. 1,780, which was due from the petitioner to the persons accused by him. As a result of his finding, the Investigating Officer drew up complaint Exh. P. O. against the petitioner under section 182, P. I'. C. as envisaged by section 195 of the Cr. P. C, the offence being non-cognizable. The petitioner was tried by Ch. Muhammad Salim M. I. C. Lahore and the trial lasted in his conviction with an award of fine of Rs. 400 or one month S. I. in default of payment thereof. The petitioner did not fair any better before the Additional Sessions Judge who upheld his conviction and sentence. Feeling aggrieved, he has preferred the present Cr. Revision. 2. The petition was admitted by me to examine the legal contention whether the complaint filed by the Police Officer was liable to be…