IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA
Crl. Appeal No. 80 of 2007.
Present:
Mr. Justice Shahid Anwar Bajwa.
1. Imtiaz Ali Mangi.
2. Mir Mohammad Shaikh.
…………...Appellants.
Versus
The State. ...…..….Respondent.
Mr. Asif Ali Abdul Razak Soomro, Advocate for appellants.
Mr. Azizul Haq Solangi, Asstt. A.G.
Date of hearing: 17.02.2010.
Date of Judgment: 17.02.2010.
J U D G M E N T
Shahid Anwar Bajwa, J-. The appellants were charged for offence under section 228 P.P.C., read with section 480 Cr.P.C.
The charge reads as under:-
“Whereas on 11th day of October, 2007, at 1.30 p.m. it was brought to the notice of the undersigned by Members of Shikarpur Bar Association that you both above named officials have apprehended, Jehangir Khan Pathan owner of Atta Mill and 2. Jamaluddin Luhur, shop keeper on the ground that they were charging excessively and thereby violating the provisions of Sindh Essential Commodities Price Control and Prevention of profiteering Ordinance, 2006, and that you were bargaining with them for their release on receiving bribe. You were summoned to produce both persons named above fore this Court for enquiry. On being produced you leveled serious allegations against them for violating the law and desire to proceed against them. The matter was still under consideration when you let both the persons off from my Court allegedly taking bribe from them without initiating proceeding against them for which they were apprehended or allowing this Court to act against them according to law and thereby intentionally interrupted the undersigned being a public servant sitting in judicial proceeding and committed offence punishable under section 228 P.P.C. read withy section 480 Cr.P.C. within cognizance of this Court.”
After framing the charge, evidence of the Reader of the Court was recorded. The entire evidence of the Reader is in the following wording:
“ I am posted as Reader in Sessions Court, Shikarpur. Today at noon time some members of Bar complained that Mukhtiarkar Imtiaz Mangi and Assistant Mukhtiarkar Mir Mohammad Shaikh have apprehended two persons, 1. Jehangir Khan Pathan owner of Aata Mill, and 2. Jamaluddin Luhur shop keeper on the ground that they were charging excessively and thereby violating the provisions of Sindh Essential Commodities Price Control and Prevention of profiteering Ordinance, 2006, and that you were bargaining with them for their release on receiving bribe. under the orders of Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, they were summoned in the Court where Imtiaz Mangi and Mir Mohammad leveled serious allegations against both persons for violation the provisions of Sindh Essential Commodities Price Control and Prevention of profiteering Ordinance, 2006. The matter was still under consideration of Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, when both above named accused officials bargained with defaulters Jehangir Khan and Jamaluddin and let them off.”
Thereafter, vide order dated October, 11, 2007, the appellants were convicted and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three days and to pay fine of Rs.200/-, each and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I for one day more. It was however also ordered by the Court that the sentence shall not effect their services.
Learned counsel for the appellants referred to the charge and submitted that it is stated in the charge that time was 1.30 p.m. and that the appellants had brought two shop keepers to the Court. he further submitted that once the appellants brought the shop keepers then it was for the Court to assume their custody and to pass order and it was not duty of the appellants to ensure that the two persons brought in the Court remain present in the Court premises. He further submitted that it is alleged that the appellants took bribe from two persons and then let them go. Learned counsel submitted that two shopkeepers have not been produced in evidence to establish that any bribe was taken. Learned counsel referred to section 228 P.P.C. and submitted that even if all the allegations are admitted as true, it does not make out offence under section 228 P.P.C.
Mr. Azizul Haq Solangi, Asstt. A.G. supported the impugned order. He however, submitted that on humanitarian consideration, since the question of service of employees is involved, lenient view may be taken and the learned trial Court has already taken lenient view by stating that conviction shall not effect their services.
I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. Section 228 P.P.C. is in the following wording:
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 public servant is sitting in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a terms which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to three thousand rupees, or with both.”
It is not alleged that the accused offered any insult to the Court by using and expressing words. It is alleged that appellants took bribe from two shopkeepers and let them to go, but they are not in the proceedings before the Court below for charge of taking bribe, and this aspect need not detain any more. Moreover, the said two shopkeepers have not been produced in evidence to establish that any bribe was taken from them. Second thing that is alleged that present two appellants allowed those two shopkeepers to go from the Court premises. It was essential that the two shopkeepers should have been produced to establish whether present appellants allowed them to go or the shopkeepers managed to slip away. Therefore, in my opinion the offence under section 228 P.P.C. was not made out. Consequently, this appeal is accepted, and order passed by lower Court on October, 11, 2007, is set aside and the present appellants are acquitted of the charges.
Judge