FAYYAZ HUSSAIN vs TARIQ MEHMOOD IQBAL KHAN and anothers
This criminal appeal before the Lahore High Court challenged an order dated 20-10-2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge initiating proceedings against the appellant under Section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for submitting an application for adjournment. The core legal issue was whether merely filing an adjournment application constitutes an intentional insult or interruption to a public servant sitting in judicial proceedings under Section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether the trial court failed to follow the procedure mandated under Sections 480 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court observed that simply submitting an adjournment application does not amount to an intentional insult or interruption of judicial proceedings. Furthermore, it noted the concession that the requisite procedure under Sections 480 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 had not been followed. Consequently, the High Court accepted the appeal and set aside the impugned order regarding Section 228 proceedings, while clarifying that proceedings under Section 514 remained unaffected.
- Whether merely submitting an application for adjournment amounts to an intentional insult or interruption to a public servant under Section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Whether a trial court must resort to proceedings under Sections 480 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when initiating action under Section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Does the setting aside of proceedings initiated under Section 228 of the Pakistan Penal Code affect separate proceedings pending under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Section 228, Pakistan Penal Code
- Section 480, Code of Criminal Procedure
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure
- Section 514, Code of Criminal Procedure
ORDER
' This order will be read in continuation of our order dated 14-11-2005 wherein learned counsel for the petitioner alleged that the trial Court was wrong in initiating proceedings under section 228, P.P.C. Against the petitioner when he had submitted application for adjournment.
2. Learned A.A.-G. Concedes that to proceed under section 228, P.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge should have resorted to proceedings under sections 480 and 482, Cr.P.C. Which was not done. He relies upon 2000 SCMR 1857 and PLD 2003 SC 19.
3. For the just decision of this case, we would like to reproduce here section 228, P.P.C.:-- "228. Intentional insult, or interruption to public servant, sitting in judicial proceeding. ---Whoever intentionally offers any insult, or causes any interruption to any public servant, while such person is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceedings, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees, or with both."
' A bare perusal of the above-quoted section would make it clear that the appellant only submitted application for adjournment and did not do any act amounting to intentional insult or interruption to the proceedings, hence the action of the appellant does not fall within the purview of section 228, P.P.C. In this view of the matter, this appeal is accepted and the impugned order, dated 20-10- 2005 to the extent of proceedings against the appellant under section 228, P.P.C. Is set aside.
Nothing observed in this order would affect on the proceedings under section 514, Cr.P.C.
Cited by 2 cases
- MUHAMMAD ASIF NADEEM vs DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER, etc PLJ 2013 Cr.C. (Lahore) 856
- MUHAMMAD ASIF NADEEM vs DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER and others 2015 YLR 2316