MOHAMMAD AHMAD Versus STATE

1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑ This leave petition is from an order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan at Karachi refusing to stay a criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner, in the Court of the City and District Magistrate.

2. The petitioner had appeared as a witness before the Special Judge (Centre) Anti‑Corruption, Karachi and the latter ordered the former should be prosecuted under section 193 of the Pakistan Penal Code for having given false evidence concerning one Qudsia Begum, alleged to be his wife. As a result of this order a criminal proceeding was started against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged this order on appeal before the High Court, but subsequently withdrew it on the ground that it had become infructuous. He filed another appeal before the High Court for expunging certain remarks made by the Special Judge but this too, was withdrawn or dismissed. In October 1970, he filed a suit in the civil Court for a declaration that the said Qudsia Begum alleged to have been employed by him in his office was not his wife. In December 1970, he filed an application before the High Court asking for staying the aforesaid Criminal Proceeding but the Court refused to grant the stay.

3. The only contention raised before the High Court was that inasmuch as the question in issue in the civil suit was the same as in the said Criminal Proceeding under section 193, P. P. C.; it was proper that the latter should be stayed pending the decision in the civil suit. In support of this reliance was placed in the case of Mohammad Akbar v. The State (P L D 1968 S C 281). The High Court repelled this contention by saying that the question raised, namely, whether the said Qudsia Begum who was appointed by the petitioner as Examiner of Designs in his office, was his wife or not, was not of a difficult nature, and that the said suit was filed long after the order of the Special Judge directing prosecution of the petitioner. It was held that the case under report had no application to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in the former title to certain property was itself in dispute and the civil suit had been filed long before the criminal complaint. The High Court was of the opinion that in the present case the civil suit was filed only to delay the prosecution against the petitioner.

4. In P L D 1968 S C 281 this Court did not lay down any invariable principle that whenever the subject‑matter of the two proceedings are the same, the criminal proceedings should be postponed pending the disposal of the civil litigation. On the contrary the Court said, "Normally it is true that criminal proceedings should not be postponed pending the disposal of civil litigation connected with the same subject‑matter . . . . "

5. The High Court had a discretion in the matter, and we do not think that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Court exercised its discretion improperly or on principles other than judicial.

6. It appears that there is an appeal pending before the High Court from the said order of prosecution itself, and the entire question of the legality of the prosecution can thus be considered by the Court.

7. The petition is dismissed.

8. Leave refused,