MUHAMMAD SAFDAR Versus STATE

ORDER.

This appeal is directed against the order, dated 22-2-1989 whereby Ch. Babar Shaft, Magistrate 1st Class, Model Town, Lahore acquitted Saeed Ahmad Malik accused respondent in a case under section 182. P.P.C.

2.The relevant facts, in brief, are that on 8-10-1987 Saeed Ahmad Malik, hereinafter called the respondent, lodged a case under section 363, P.P.C. at Police Station Wahdat Colony, Lahore alleging that his school going minor son, namely Muhammad Sohail Malik, aged about 13/14 was missing since 15 th September, 1987. He expressed his suspicion that he had been kidnapped by someone. During the investigation of the case on 8-11-1987 he made a supplementary statement which is reproduced as under:--

3.On .the basis of the above statement the Investigating Officer associated the abovementioned Muhammad Akram and Jamil with the investigation and interrogated them. It was found that there was a money dispute between the said Muhammad Akram and Rashid Ahmad Malik the real brother of the respondent. The Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that the aforesaid two persons were innocent and that the case had been registered with the purpose of intimidating them. Later on, however, Muhammad Sohail Malik the son of the respondent was recovered by the police from Faisalabad. The boy stated that he was not pulling on well with his studies and therefore, had himself run away from the house and that he had not been kidnapped by anyone. Thereafter, the case was cancelled vide order, dated 16-2-1988 by the learned Ilaqa Magistrate who also ordered the initiation of proceedings under section 182, P.P.C. against the respondent for having imparted false information to the police. The respondent could not tender any explanation within the prescribed period of seven days, whereafter, a complaint was lodged against him through Shahid Mahmood, Inspector/S.H.O., Police Station Wahdat Colony in the Court of the learned Ilaqa Magistrate for proceeding against the respondent.

4.On 12-7-1988 the respondent was formally charged. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5.The prosecution could not produce any evidence on the nine dates of hearing i.e. 30-7-1988, 15-8-1988, 27-8-1988, 12-9-1988, 26-9-1988, 15-10-1988, 29-10-1988, 26-11-1988 and 29-11-1988. On the last date of hearing i.e. 29-11-1988 the respondent moved an application under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. for his acquittal. After hearing the parties on the said application the learned Magistrate vide the impugned order acquitted the respondent.

6.Feeling aggrieved the State has come up in appeal.

7.I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record.

8.It is clear from the above narration of facts that a number of opportunities had been afforded to the prosecution for the production of its evidence against the respondent which it failed to produce without any cogent reason. Of course the respondent could not be dragged on for any indefinite period in a Court of law to enable the indolent prosecution agency to produce its witnesses. Learned trial Court was justified in holding that this failure on the part of the prosecution could be one of the grounds for the acquittal of the respondent.

9.Section 182, P.P.C. reads as follows:--

10.The most essential ingredient of the above provision of law is that the person, who gives information to any public servant, knows or believes that the said information is false. The second essential ingredient is that by giving such false information he intends to cause any injury or annoyance to the person or persons against whom such information is given. In the present case there was no material whatsoever on record to establish that the respondent knew that the information which he had imparted to the police through his supplementary statement, dated 8-11-1987 was false or by the said statement he intended to cause any annoyance or injury to Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Jamil aforementioned. It was a fact that the minor son of the respondent was missing. The state of his mind could very well be imagined. He had been receiving all sorts of information from different quarters, which he conveyed to the concerned police Authorities with the purpose that his son was recovered. The information that the boy was being kept by the aforesaid two persons was conveyed to him by a man named Aslam on telephone. After confirming from the informer that the information was true he further conveyed it to the police Authorities verbatim. His conduct was not only natural but cautious also. He did what a father would do in such circumstances, It is an admitted fact that his son was recovered much after the said information from Faisalabad. It, therefore, could not be said with certainty that the respondent knew or believed that the information contained in his supplementary statement was false and was intended to cause injury and annoyance to Muhammad Akram and Muhammad Jamil aforesaid. In these circumstances the learned trial Court was justified in holding that there was no possibility of the conviction of the respondent in the present case. The respondent, therefore, was rightly acquitted in exercise of the powers under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. There is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed in limine.

N.H.Q./S-433/L

Appeal dismissed.