RAB NAWAZ vs THE STATE

' ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J.---While serving as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police the appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of the Peace, Sargodha on 18-12-2004 for an offence under section 228, P.P.C. And was sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of 10 days and to pay a fine of Rs,1,000 or in default of payment thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for two days. The appellant preferred an appeal in that regard which was dismissed by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, Lahore on 6-10-2010. Hence, the present appeal by leave of this Court.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Prosecutors- General, Punjab appearing for the State and have gone through the record of this case with their assistance.

3. The record of this case shows that the appellant had been proceeded against for violating/ disobeying an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha which order had been passed by him in his capacity as an ex-officio Justice of the Peace. The provisions of section 228, P.P.C. Are attracted to a case involving insult or interruption during a "judicial proceeding" and it has already been held by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in the cases of Khizer Hayat and others v.

Inspector-General of Police (Punjab), Lahore and others (PLD 2005 Lahore 470(FB)) and Pir Abdul.

Qayyum Shah v. S.H.O. And 4 others (2005 PCr.LJ 357) that proceedings conducted by an ex-officio Justice of the Peace are not judicial proceedings. In view of this legal position the appellant's conviction and sentence recorded for an offence under section 228, P.P.C. Are clearly illegal and unsustainable. Apart from that the provisions of section 228, P.P.C. Are attracted to an insult or interruption during some judicial proceedings but in the case in hand no such insult or interruption during any judicial proceeding had been A alleged against the appellant and the only allegation levelled against him was that he had failed to carry out an order passed on an earlier occasion by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sargodha.

4. For both the above mentioned reasons the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned, this appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded and upheld by the learned courts below are set aside.