1987 P L C 487

[Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind]

Present: Ali Nawaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal

Messrs WELLCOME PAKISTAN LTD.

Versus

ABDUL RASHID

Appeal No. KAR-348 of 1985, decided on 4th December, 1986.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)—-

---Ss. 25-A & 38(3)--Dismissal of worker for misconduct--Worker dismissed on

complaint by a Manager of firm on account of misconduct and for showing riotous and
disorderly behaviour during working hours--Original complaint not brought on record
and only a photo copy produced at stage of filing of reply statement before Labour Court
without a certificate that it was a compared copy of original--Appellant establishment
failing to establish existence of a valid complaint against worker which was basis of
charge-sheet--Held, in absence of a credible and satisfactory evidence to connect worker
with misconduct, enquiry against him was not proper and his consequential dismissal
from service not sustainable--Order of dismissal set aside and worker was directed to be
reinstated in service with full back benefits.

1979 P L C 5; 1980 P L C 777; 1980 P L C 369; 1983 P L C 143; 1960 P L C 530 and
1980 P L C 178 ref

Mahmood A. Ghani for Appellant. Ali Amjad for Respondent. Date of hearing: 4th
December, 1986.

DECISION

This is an appeal filed by Messrs Welcome Pakistan Ltd., Karachi, against an impugned
order, dated 30-9-1985, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. II, Karachi, who had
allowed the grievance petition of the respondent, Abdul Rashid, filed by him under
section 25-A, I.R.O. 2969 and directed his re-instatement in service with full back
benefits.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was a permanent workman in the
appellant establishment since 24-3-1976, and according to him he had unblemished
service record. On 17-5-1984, he received a charge-sheet, dated 15-5-1984, alleging
therein that on 13-5-1984 at 3-15 p.m.; when he was working in the stores, he approached
to Mr. Gagan Hameed, Manager, non-Sterile Production and asked him to sign the
gatepass for short leave and when Mr. Gagan advised him to get the same signed from his
immediate superior, he insisted upon immediate signature and used abusive language and
thereafter, he left the stores premises and came back after five minutes and then threw the
gatepass on Mr. Gagan Hameed and again abused him. Thereupon, Mr. Gagan Hameed
advised him to behave properly but he lost temper and threw the Stappling machine on
him which hurt his hand and damaged his watch and thereafter, he tried to attack him
physically when he was stopped by others, thus, he committed misconduct within the
meaning of Standing Order 15(3) (h) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial
Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. That, the respondent, Abdul Rashid had
replied to this charge-sheet satisfactorily submitting therein that on 13-5-1984, during
duty hours, he received an urgent information that his grandmother was seriously ill, so,
he went to Mr. Gagan Hameed, Manager non-Sterile Production to obtain short leave on
gatepass, but, Mr. Gagan Hameed, instead of sympathetically considering the request,
adopted an angry and revengeful attitude and directed him to come via his Departmental
Head and that on his insistent request, Mr. Gagan threw away the Gate Pass Book and
that, in the meantime on 16-5-1984, the respondent's grandmother had expired and when
he came back to join his duty on 17-5-1984, he was served a charge-sheet, dated
15-5-1984, and all the allegations of misconduct were denied by him. As, this reply to the
charge-sheet was found unsatisfactory, therefore, the appellants establishment had
ordered for holding of a domestic enquiry and inconsequence of this domestic enquiry,
the Enquiry Officer had found the respondent guilty of the alleged misconduct of riotous
and disorderly behaviour during working hours and consequently, the respondent was
dismissed from service vide order, dated 3-9-1984. Then, the respondent submitted a
grievance notice, dated 27-9-1984, which was rejected by the appellants establishment on
11-10-1984, hence, his grievance petition, before the learned Labour Court, under section
25-A, I.R.O. 1969.

3. The respondent filed his affidavit-in-evidence and he was cross-examined by the

appellants establishment. The appellants establishment filed the affidavit-in-evidence of
Enquiry Officer, S.M. Hasnain and also examined Major Mansoor Bajwa, Manager
Stores and both were duly cross-examined by the respondent. Thereafter, the learned
Labour Court had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent directing his
re-instatement in service with full back benefits, hence, this appeal.

4. I have heard Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, the learned Representative for the appellants
establishment and Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned counsel, on behalf of the respondent, and
have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. It was contended by
Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, the learned Representative for the appellant establishment that
the learned Labour Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that the charge-sheet
issued to the respondent was false and baseless merely on the ground that the original
copy of the complaint made by Mr. Gagan Hameed was not produced by the
management, either during the course of the domestic enquiry, or, alongwith the reply
statement before the learned Labour Court, and that the law provides that no order of
dismissal shall be made unless a workman concerned is informed in writing of the alleged
misconduct, that the respondent should have requested the management for supply of
copy of the complaint or otherwise had requested the management to clarify the charge
before submitting his reply to the charge-sheet, that there is no provisions of the Evidence
Act do not strictly apply to the domestic enquiry, that it was not necessary that
endorsement should be made on the text of the complaint by the authority to whom it was
addressed, that nowhere the provisions of the Standing Orders provide that the copy of
the complaint should be supplied to the worker before issuance of show-cause notice or
that all the show-cause notices should necessarily be based -on written complaints. It was
further pleaded by Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani that evidentiary value of the witnesses cannot
be set aside on the ground that the complainant did not specifically mention their names
and that the technicalities of the Criminal and or Civil Procedure Code cannot be
imported in the domestic enquiry. On the other hand, Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned
Advocate on behalf of the respondent had argued that the entire proceedings against the
respondent became suspicious and doubtful and that a false and baseless charge-sheet
was issued to the respondent as the original complaint of Mr. Gagan Hameed was not
produced by the appellant establishment, at any stage and that the photostat copy of it
does not bear any endorsement of the authority to whom it was addressed and this fact
lands support to the possibility that as a matter of fact no complaint ever existed and a
concocted and false photostat copy of the same had been produced by the appellant
establishment alongwith its reply statement so as to justify their action of issuing a
baseless charge-sheet. It is an admitted position that the charge-sheet was issued against
the respondent on the basis of a written complaint made by Mr. Gagan Hameed. It ought
to have been brought on the record during the domestic enquiry. There is nothing on
record to show as to where the original report was and why it was not brought on record
in the enquiry proceedings. Mere production of a photostat copy, particularly at the stage
of filing the Reply Statement before the learned Labour Court, even without a certificate
that it is a compared true copy of the original and without production of its origin: for
inspection and perusal of the learned Labour Court, will not be sufficient to hold that this
particular document ever existed or it has A been lawfully brought on record, I, therefore,
hold that the learned Labour Court has rightly held that the appellant establishment have
failed to establish the existence of a valid and proper complaint against the respondent
which was the basis of the issuance of the charge-sheet, dated 15-5-184, and thus, on the
basis of such a doubtful and suspicious charge-sheet, an enquiry, cannot be a valid and
proper enquiry and thereby the consequential dismissal of the respondent from his service
cannot be sustained. The Authorities relied upon by Mr. Mahmood Ghani, reported in
1979 P L C 5; 1980 P L C 777; 1980 P L C 369; 1983 P L C 143; 1960 P L C 530 and
1980 P L C 178 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

5. Lastly, it was contended by Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, the learned Representative for the
appellant establishment that the learned Labour Court has also erred in attaching
importance of the object that was thrown by the respondent at the person of Mr. Gagan
Hameed as the evidence was led and came on record that the respondent had thrown
some articles at Mr. Gagan Hameed with a view to injure him in the presence of the
witnesses, whose names he did mention in his cross-examination and that the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses were not reliable or creditable merely on the ground that the
witnesses do not belong to Stores Department as the reliability and creditability of
evidence is not to be determined on mere surmises, conjectures and speculative
considerations, but their reliability is to be tested on the basis of cross-examination which
admittedly was done in the present case and their statements could not be disturbed; and
that there was no provocation on the part of the management/ Manager Production, who
was well within his right to ask the respondent to obtain the signature of his immediate
superior, Muhammad Ashraf, before applying for short leave and even otherwise, refusal
of Mr. Gagan Hameed to sign the signature was not of such grave nature which warranted
the respondent to take the law in his hand by resorting disorderly behaviour and use of
highly foul and abusive language. On the other hand, Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned
Advocate on behalf of the respondent had argued that the appellant establishment have
failed to adduce any reliable and creditable evidence to establish the charge of
misconduct levelled against him. Mr. Ali Amjad has referred the statement of Mr. Gagan
Hameed before the Enquiry Officer and submitted that he has not mentioned the name of
any person to have witnessed the alleged riotous and disorderly behaviour of the
respondent nor he had stated that at the time of the incident any other person or persons
were present, therefore, in these circumstances, the other witnesses examined by the
establishment would be false witnesses and their evidence has no value and credit ability.
He further submitted that even if it be presumed that Muhammad Karim, witness No.2
was present at the time of incident, then, his evidence is at variance and that from perusal
of the entire examination-in-chief of Muhammad Karim, no man of reasonable prudence
and understanding would come to the conclusion that the respondent had committed
riotous and disorderly behaviour or that he used abusive language against Mr. Gagan
Hameed and that there is disorderly and contradiction in the statements of the witnesses
as Mr. Gagan Hameed has stated that stappling machine was thrown upon him, whereas
Muhammad Krim has stated that first he threw the Gate Pass Book and thereafter he hit
him with the Table Calender. Mr. Ali Amjad further submitted that the complainant, Mr.
Gagan Hameed in his cross-examination made a statement that Muhammad Karim was
sitting alongwith him and when the respondent came subsequently after five minutes,
then, Mujeeb and Hameed were also present. Admittedly, Mr. Gagan Hameed did not
mention the name of any witness in his examination-in-chief and it was in his
cross-examination that he had mentioned the names of certain witnesses, which evidence,
cannot be used to the disadvantage of the respondent. The appellant establishment have
failed to establish the presence of the witnesses at the time of alleged incident and also
the reliability and creditability of their evidence. There is an admission by Muhammad
Karim, the prosecution witness before the Enquiry Officer that it was Mr. Gagan Hameed
who had not only refused to sign the gatepass when the respondent wanted a short leave
to visit his ailing maternal grandmother, but, he had also thrown the same down and that
prior to this, the respondent had not been assigned to have acted in any manner which
could be said to be riotous and disorderly behaviour and that if any act subversive of
discipline had been committed by the respondent, then, the same could not be said to be
voluntary, intentional and deliberate, but, would be on account of provocation and shock
given to the respondent by the action of Mr. Gagan Hameed in throwing down the Gate
Pass Book. I, therefore, hold that the learned Labour Court has rightly held that the
appellant establishment had failed to adduce reliable, creditable and satisfactory evidence
to connect the respondent with the misconduct alleged in the above type of charge sheet,
dated 15-5-1984 and the findings of the Enquiry Officer holding him guilty of such false
and connected misconduct. Thereafter, the consequential dismissal from service of the
respondent is perfectly liable to be set aside.
6. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned
order. I would maintain it and dismiss this appeal. The respondent is directed to be
reinstated in service forthwith with) full back benefits. The amount of back benefits,
deposited by the appellants establishment in this Tribunal, be paid to the respondent,
Abdul Rashid.

M.Y.H./888/Lb. Appeal dismissed.

1984 P Cr. L J 794

[Lahore]

Before Gulbaz Khan, J

MUHAMMAD ANWAR-Petitioner

versus

THB STATE-Respondent

Criminal Revision No. 15 of 1982, decided o4 9th January, 1984

(a) Evidence Act (I of 1872)--

Ss. 32 & 33-Scope. Section 32 of the Evidence Act simply states that the statements,
written or verbal, of relevant facts, made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be
found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence or whose attendance cannot be
procured without an amount of delay or expense, which under the circumstances of the
case appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts. It is provided in
section 33 1872 of the Evidence Act "evidence given by a witness in a judicial
proceeding, or before any person authorised by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose
of proving in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later state of the same judicial
proceeding, the truth of the facts, which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be
found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party;
or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under
the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable." Three provisos have
been added to section 33, firstly, that the proceeding was between the same parties or
their representatives in interest ; secondly, that the adverse party in the first proceeding
had the right and opportunity to cross-examine ; and thirdly, that the questions in issue
were substantially the same in the first as in the second proceeding. An explanation has
also been added to section 33 stating, "a criminal trial or inquiry shall be deemed to be a
proceeding between the prosecutor and the accused within the meaning of this section."

(b) Evidence Act (I of 1872)-

-- Ss. 74, 61 & 65-Public document, primary evidence and secondary evidence-
Definitions.-[Evidence]. Public document has been defined in section 74 of the Evidence
Act. Chapter V of the Evidence Act deals with the documentary evidence. It is provided
in section 61 of the Evidence Act that the contents of document may be proved either by
primary or secondary evidence. Primary evidence has been defined as document itself
produced for the inspection of the Court. Secondary evidence means and includes
certified copies made from the original by mechanical process which in themselves insure
the accuracy of the copy and copies compared with such copies, copies made from or
compared with the original, etc.

Secondary evidence is permissible under section 65 (e) of the Evidence Act.

Allah Ditta v. The State P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 290 and Muhammad Siddique and another
v. The State 1974 P Cr. L J 180 ref.

(c) Evidence Act (I of 1872)-

--- Ss- 67 & 79-Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 342, 343, 319, 323, 330, 392/109--
Wrongful confinement-Hurt -- Complainant leading primary as well as secondary
evidence in producing original medico-legal register and its certified copies-
Requirements of S. 67, Evidence Act, 1872 meet out when witness stating that relevant
entry in said register contained signature of doctor and witness could recognize same--
Court competent to look into such medico-legal report-Presumption of genuineness
attached to medico-legal report under provisions of S. 79, Evidence Act, 1872.

(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-

- Ss. 342, 343, 319, 323, 330, 392/109 & 511 - Wrongful confinement-Hurt-Statement of
complainant corroborated by medicolegal report-Evidence proving that complainant was
kept in illegal custody by three Police Officers for 6 days without any justification and
wrongfully confined for more than 3 days-Conviction of such public officers under S.
343, P. P. C.; held, justified.

(e) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-

--- S. 319-Hurt-Definition-Person causing bodily pain to another person, held, guilty of

causing hurt.-[Words and phrases].

Hurt has been defined in section 319, P. P. C. It is provided in the said section that
whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. It is
not necessary that in fact, there should be marks of violence. If a person causes bodily
pain to another person he is guilty of causing hurt.

(f ) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-

---- S. 392/109-Robbery-Ample evidence on record showing that Police Officer robbed

complainant at instance of his Senior Officer Conviction of officer under whose instance
robbery committed under S. 392/109, P. P. C., held, proper.

(g) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-

-- Ss. 392 & 511-Robbery--Attempt to commit robbery by Police Officer-Such officer,

held, guilty under S. 392 read with S. 511, P. P. C.

(h) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-

.-- Ss. 392/109, 342, 343 & 319-Robbery-Wrongful confinement Hurt--Delay in trial---
Accused themselves responsible for delayed disposal of case by sending medical
certificate and making requests for adjournment-No lenient view, held, could be taken on
account of delay in disposal of case in circumstances.-[Delay].
Rafique Ahmad Bajwa for Petitioner.

Altaf Muhammad Khan for the State.

Date of hearing : 25th September, 1983.

JUDGMENT

Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. filed this revision petition against the judgment of
learned Sessions Judge, Lahore, dated 7th January, 1982 whereby his appeal was
dismissed. He was ordered to be sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three
months and a fine of rupees five hundred or in default in payment thereof to suffer S.-I.
for one month, under section 342, P. P. C. His convictions and sentences under sections
323, 330, 392/109, P. P. C. were set aside. The appeal of Shafqat Ali Chathha S.-I, was
accepted and his convictions and sentences were set aside. Nawazish Ali filed petition
under section 417 (2), Cr. P. C. against Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S. I. and Shafqat
Ali Chathha S.-I. After hearing the counsel and perusing the record, notices were issued
to Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. and Shafqat Ali Chathha S.-I. The revision
petition and the appeal filed by Nawazish Ali are being disposed of together as they arise
out of the same judgment.

2. The case was tried by the Assistant Commissioner, Sadar, SubDivision/Magistrate

Section 30, Lahore, who, vide his judgment dated 3rd June, 1980 convicted Shafqat Ali
Chathha S.-I. and Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. for offences under sections 323,
330, 343 and 392/1.09, P. P. C. Both of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year and a fine of rupees five hundred or in default in payment of
fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under section 323, P. P. C. They
were sentenced to undergo R. I. for two years under section 330, P. P. C. They were
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rupees one
thousand each or in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each under
section 343, P. P. C. They were also sentenced to undergo R. I. for. two years and a fine of
rupees one thousand or in default in payment of fine to undergo S.-I. for three months
each under section 392/109, P. P. C. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Both of them had filed appeal against their convictions and sentences. The learned
Sessions Judge accepted the appeal of Shafqat Ali Chathha and altered the conviction of
Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. from sections 343 to 342, P. P. C. and reduced his
sentence to rigorous imprisonment for three months and a fine of rupees five hundred or
in default in payment of fine to suffer S.-I. for one month. His convictions and sentences
under other offences were, however, set aside.

3. On 15th August, 1974, Syed Nawazish Ali filed complaint against Shafqat Ali Chathha
S. H. O., Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. and Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I., all attached to
Police Station Wahdat Colony, Lahore. He alleged in the complaint that on 22nd June.
1974 at about 9/10-00 p. m. he was returning to his house from cinema house and when
he reached near Naqsha Bus Stop, he was stopped by Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-
I. who was in plain clothes alongwith two other persons ; that Muhammad Anwar A. S.-I.
wanted to take out rupees thirty from his pocket but he held the amount in his grip ; that
Muhammad Anwar A. S.-I., and his two companions threatened him to part with the
money but he refused whereupon he was forcibly taken to Police Station Wahdat
Colony ; that Shafqat Ali Chathha S. H. O. and Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. were present at the
Police Station ; that on the false representation of Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I.,
Shafqat Ali Chathha S. H. O. and Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. abused him (complainant) ; that
Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. snatched rupees thirty from him and put the same in his pocket ;
that Shafqat Ali Chathha S. H. O. and Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. told Muhammad Anwar
Muharrir A. S.-I. and other Constables to strip him (complainant) naked and teach him
lesson for his misconduct towards the police whereupon he was stripped naked and his
hands were tied down with his shalwar and was felled with his face downwards ; that he
was beaten by the three police officers, namely, Shafqat Ali Chathha S. H. O., Zahoor
Ahmad A. S.-I., and Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. that he became unconscious
and he regained senses after half an hour ; that he was further beaten with cane by the S.
H. O. and Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I., that he was hung up and down and was further beaten
by the three accused with cane on the buttocks and dorsum of the foot ; that he was made
to run by Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. at the instance of the other two accused in
order to avoid clotting of blood on the feet ; that he was handcuffed by the Muharrir A.
S.-I. and kept in illegal confinement in Police Quarter No. M/1 till morning of 23rd June,
1974 ; that on 23rd June, 1974 at 3-00 p.m., the S. H. O. and Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. came
to the quarter and both of them tortured him (complainant) ; that the accused kept him in
illegal confinement as he had many injuries on his person ; that his father filed habeas
corpus petition bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No. 473-H/74 on 26th June, 1974 and a
bailiff was deputed to recover him ; that the bailiff came to Quarter No. M/1
accompanied by his father and found him (complainant) in illegal confinement ; that till
then no case had been registered against him nor he was arrested in a case nor produced
before any Court ; that the accused wanted to send him to judicial lock-up in a police van
but the Incharge declined to take him on account of his injuries ; that the accused took
him in a taxi car and sent him to the judicial lock-up on 29th June, 1974 ; that under the
order of the High Court he was medically examined on 2nd July, 1974 by the Medical
Officer Camp Jail, Lahore ; that on 2nd July, 1974 at the instance of the accused he was
made to join an identification parade but nobody identified him ; that the High Court
allowed him bail and released him from illegal custody and also issued contempt notice
to the accused on 12th July, 1974 ;that it was observed by the High Court that he had nine
injuries on his person and the duration of injuries fitted in with the date of illegal
confinement ; that he (complainant) was directed by the High Court to proceed against
the accused.

4. The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of Syed Nawazish Ali complainant and
issued process against the accused vide order, dated 17th August, 1974 for offences under
sections 323, 343, 330, 392/ 109, P. P. C.

5. The complainant produced Rana Abdullah Khalid Dispenser, Camp Jail, Lahore (P. W.-
1), Muhammad Munir, Assistant, Accounts Branch, High Court, Lahore (P. W.-2), Sabir
Hussain Muharrir malkana, Wahdat Colony, Lahore (not numbered), Syed S. M. Ijaz Ali
(P. W.-3). The complainant himself was examined as (P. W.-4). Besides his statement, he
produced medico-legal report Exh. P. A., copy of the order of the High Court, dated 12th
July, 1974 Exh. P. B., copy of the order of the High Court dated 27th January, 1975 Exh.
P. C., whereby the accused were convicted for contempt ; copy of the order of the
Supreme Court Exh. P. D. whereby the appeal of Shafqat Ali Chathha S. H. O. against his
conviction for contempt of Court was dismissed and copies of reports Nos. 10, 12 and 14,
dated 28th June, 1974 Exh. P. E. of Police Station, Wahdat Colony.

6: Nawazish Ali complainant while appearing in Court supported his version as given in
his complaint. His father, Syed S. M. Ijaz Ali fully, corroborated his statement.
Muhammad Munir was deputed as bailiff to recover Nawazish Ali complainant from the
illegal custody of the accused. He deposed that under the order of Mr. Justice Saleem
Mazhar, he visited Police Station, on 28th June, 1974 at 1-15 p.m. ; that he was
accompanied by the father of the detenu ; that he visited quarter No. M/1 of the Police
Station and found the complainant in handcuff; that two Constables were sleeping in the
same room ; that the complainant and two other persons who were also in handcuff
informed him that they were being kept by Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. that he went to Anwar
Ali Muharrir A. S.-I. and after introducing himself asked for the roznamcha, which was
delivered by the Muharrir A. S.-I. ; that he examined the roznamcha in order to find out
any entry about the custody of the complainant but he did not find any ; that he asked
Muharrir A. S.-I. as to who was in possession of the papers against the complainant and
was told by the Muharrir that the same were with Zahoor Ahmad A. S -I. ; that report No.
9 was last entry in the roznamcha, dated 28th June, 1974 ; that he met the S. H. O. and
Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. in the adjoining room and told them that he wanted to examine
the documents in respect of complainant whereupon Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. went to the
room of Muharrir A. S.-I. ; that two minutes later he saw Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. running
out of the Police Station holding raznamcha in his hand ; that he drew the attention of the
S. H. O. to the conduct of Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. and himself wanted to chase him but
was held by the S. H. O. who stated that there was nothing to worry and that the
roznamcha would be brought back ; that it was 1-45 p.m. whereafter S. H. O. sent a
Constable in order to bring back the rozrnamcha and ten minutes later, the Constable
brought back the roznamcha ; that on opening the roznamcha he found that report No. 10
in respect of the arrest of the complainant and report No. 11 (a miscellaneous report) had
been inserted ; that he asked the S. H. O. to show him the file of Case No. 130/74 in
respect of which the arrest of the complainant had been shown and the S. H. O. sent a
Constable to Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. to fetch the file ; that at 2-25 p.m. the Constable
brought the file stating that he was unable to meet Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. and
simultaneously stated that Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. had given him the key of the almirah
and he had brought the file from the almirah ; that zimni No. 3 dated 28th June, 1974 was
the last zimni in respect of the arrest of the complainant ; that he (bailiff) recorded report
No. 12 in the roznamcha giving all the details ; that he asked the Muharrir to hand- over
the copies of reports Nos. 10, 11 and 12 and while those copies were being prepared, D.
S. P. Bajwah entered the room of the S. H. O. and he narrated the entire facts to him ; that
the S. H. O. told him to come at 5-00 p. m. for the copies as he was leaving the Police
Station with the D. S. P. in order to conduct a raid for the arrest of Farid Paracha; that the
father of the complainant told him (bailiff) that the complainant be got medically
examined who was seriously injured but he informed him that it could be done only
under the order of the High Court ; that he again went to the Police Station in order to
obtain the copies where Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. met him and threatened him with serious
consequences and also threatened him to involve him in a theft case ; that the S. H. O.
kept quiet during those threats and at the end pleaded for mercy as Zahoor Ahmad was
about to retire soon. He further stated that the accused were convicted by High Court in
Criminal Original No. 64 of 1974 (contempt case) and were sentenced to imprisonment
and fine.

7. Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. and Shafqat Ali Chathha S.-I. were examined
under section 342, Cr. P. C. They denied the prosecution allegations. Muhammad Anwar
A. S.-I. stated that he did not know as to why the case had been made against him. He
added that instead of two Muharrirs, he alone was working for twenty four hours at the
Police Station. Shafqat Ali Chathha stated that he did not make any entry in the
roznamcha. He stated that he had been convicted for contempt of Court although he was
not guilty of such an offence.

8. Four witnesses were examined in defence. Muhammad Ashiq (D. W. 1) and Fateh Ali
(D. W. 3) stated that they had not gone to the Police Station, Wahdat Colony with the
father of the complainant. Statement of Muhammad Aslam A. S.-I. could not be recorded
as he had not prepared the copies of various reports. Zamin Abbas A. S.-I. (D. W. 4)
produced the report of case F. I. R. No. 130/74 under section 382, P. P. C. This case was
filed as untraced. He stated that zimni No. 2 dated 23rd June, 1974, zimni No. 2-A dated
23rd June, 1974 and Zimni No. 30 dated 28th June, 1974 were prepared by Zahoor
Ahmad A. S.-I. He also produced copies of reports D-4 and D-18.

9. The complainant had produced certified copies of the orders of this Court, dated 12th
July, 1974 Exh. P. B. and 28th January, 1975 ExH. P. C. It was clear from the certified
copy Exh. P. B. that this Court issued notices to Zahoor Abroad A. S.-I., Shafqat Ali
Chathha S.-I. and Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. in the following terms :-

"Zahoor Ahmad, S.-I.

That in the presence of the bailiff in the Police Station Wahdat Colony, Lahore, with a
view to defeat the order of this Court, he took away the roznamcha outside the Police
Station with an ulterior motive and recorded report No. 10 therein regarding the arrest of
Nawazish Ali, giving the time as 11-00 a. m. on 28th June, 1974,.the day bailiff raided the
Police Station and he also wrote zimni No. 3, dated 28th June, 1974 of the arrest of
Nawazish Ali even though the said person was with him since 22nd June, 1974 as alleged
in the petition, and which prima facie proves to be correct, and that he also threatened the
bailiff of this Court with the registration of a false case of theft against him. By reason of
the above, he is prima facie guilty of the contempt of this Court."

"S.-I. Shafqat Ali Chathha, S. H. O.

That in spite of the fact that the bailiff brought the factum of the taking away of the
roznnmcha by A. S.-I, Zahur Ahmad, for making false entries therein, to his notice, yet he
failed to take any action in the matter, that when the bailiff tried to run after the A. S.-I.
Zahur Ahmad for taking back the roznamcha, he caught hold of the bailiff from his arm
and thus abstained him from going after the A. S.-I. Zahur Ahmad. Moreover, by
misusing his position as S. H. O. of the Police Station, he recorded report No. 14, dated
28th June, 1974, in the roznamcha making certain allegations against the bailiff of this
Court with a view to make a defence for himself, A. S.-I. Zahur Ahmad and Muharrir A.
S.-I. Muhammad Anwar for their illegal acts. By reason of the above, it is obvious that he
is not only an abettor of the offence but he has also actually worked illegally for A. S.-I.
Zahur Ahmad and Muharrir A. S.-I. to save them and also himself and that this act of him
was also to defeat the order of this Court. He is, therefore, prima facie guilty of the
contempt of this Court."

"Muhammad Anwar Moharrir, A. S.-I.

That he also failed to take any action in the matter when the roznamcha was taken away
from him by A. S.-I. Zahur Ahmad outside the Police Station with a view to making
certain wrong and bogus entries therein about the arrest or otherwise of Nawazish Ali, for
which purpose the bailiff had raided the Police Station. He has also abetted the offence by
helping A. S.-I. Zahur Ahmad in handing over the roznamcha to him with a view to
defeating the order of this Court. He is, therefore, prima facie guilty of the contempt of
this Court."

It stood proved from Exh. P. C. that the three contemners, namely, Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-
I., Shafqat Ali Chathha S.-I. and Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. were convicted for
contempt of Court and each of them was sentenced to undergo S.-I. for two months and a
fine of rupees five hundred each or in default in payment of fine to suffer further S.-I. for
one month. The three contemners filed appeal before the Supreme Court. The appeal of
Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. had abated on account of his death. The appeal of Shafqat Ali
Chathha S.-I. was dismissed while that of Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. was
accepted for the reason that there was nothing to show that he was also a party to the
collusion between his two seniors and was instrumental in allowing Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-
I. to slip away from the Police Station alongwith roznamcha. It was further observed by
the Supreme Court that the Muharrir acted under the order of the S. H. O. in giving the
roznamcha to Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. who had been deputed to fetch the same.

The appellate Court set aside the conviction of Muhammad Anwar A. S.-I. and Shafqat
Ali Chathha S.-I. under section 323, P. P. C. because the statement of the complainant
remained uncorroborated, as the doctor, who medically examined the complainant, was
not produced in Court and besides, the medico-legal report was not legally proved as the
requirements of sections 32 and 33 of the Evidence Act were not satisfied. It was also
observed that no attempt was made to examine the process-server, who was deputed to
effect the service of Dr. Shafqat-ur-Rehman, Medical Officer, Camp Jail, Lahore, who
had medically examined to complainant.

The conviction and sentence of both the accused under section 330, P. P. C. was set aside
on the ground that there was no evidence on the record to show that the accused had
made any effort to extract any confession from the complainant.

As regards offence under section 392/109, P, P. C., it was observed by the appellate Court
that it appeared to have been committed by Zahoor Ahmad (since dead) who alone had
taken out the amount of rupees thirty from the complainant's pocket.
Shafqat Ali Chathha S.-I. was acquitted of the charges under section 343, P. P. C. on the
ground that it was Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. who had brought the complainant
from Naqsha Bus Stop to the Police Station and by his mere presence at the Police
Station, the S. H. O. could not be blamed for the sins of his subordinate staff. It was
further observed by the appellate Court that although the complainant charged the S. H.
O. for having directed Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. to take money from him, yet it could not be
an adequate reason to hold that he shared the same intent, neglect, or carelessness, which
either of his co-appellants Muhammad Anwar Mubarrir A. S.-I. or Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I.
had shown in this context. There was another observation that even otherwise to show
that S. H. O. was keen to. get rupees thirty from the complainant was something unusual
and that it was too paltry an amount for which his animous could not be assumed. It was
also observed that Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. was guilty for wrongfully
confining the complainant from Naqsha Bus Stop to the Police Station and thereafter,
Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. was responsible for the wrongful confinement for the remaining
period.

10. The appellate Court bad referred cases titled Allah Ditta v. The State (P L D 1958 S C
290) and Muhammad Siddique and another v. The State (1974 P Cr. L J 180) and came to
the conclusion that the requirements of sections 32 and 33 of Evidence Act had not been
satisfied and thus the medico-legal report was not legally proved.

11. It was contended by the learned counsel for Muhammad Anwar A. S. I. that on the
basis of the statements of Nawazish Ali complainant and his father, the conviction of
Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. could not be maintained ; that the complainant had
made allegation against the other Constables but they were not prosecuted ; that the
function of the Muharrir A. S.-I. was to sit in the office and record reports in the
roznamcha and thus he could riot move out of the Police Station and the complainant's
version was false that he was apprehended by Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. at
Naqsha Bus Stop ; and that by taking the complainant to the Police Station, Muhammad
Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. was not guilty of wrongful restraint.

12. The learned counsel for Nawazish Ali complainant submitted that the medico-legal
report was a public document and it stood proved in accordance with law and it was
wrongfully discarded by the appellate Court. He referred to sections 74, 76, and 79 of the
Evidence Act. He further contended that even if any irregularity had been committed in
not examining the process server it had not occasioned miscarriage of justice and since no
objection had been taken up about the non-production of process-server, the defect, if
any, was curable under section 537, Cr. P. C.

As regards the merits, it was submitted that the appellants had been wrongfully acquitted
of the charges under sections 323, 330, 343, 392 and 109, P. P. C. He canvassed that even
if a person is robbed of a single rupee, he is guilty of offence under section 392, P. P. C.

The learned counsel for Shafqat Ali. Chathha submitted that the conviction under section
323, P. P. C. could not be sustained as the medical certificate was not legally proved; that
Shafqat Ali Chathha was successful to proving his alibi; that no evidence was led to
prove offence under section 330, P. P. C.; that the appellate Court rightly acquitted him of
all the charges.

13. It was submitted by learned counsel appearing for State that the grounds given by the
appellate Court for the acquittal of Shafqat Ali Chathha S. H. O. were sound, that in the
presence of sections 32 and 33, 74, 76 and 79 of the Evidence Act referred by the learned
counsel for the complainant had no application.

14. The occurrence took place on 22nd June, 1974. As stated by Syed Nawazish Ali
complainant. he was returning to his house from cinema house and when he reached near
Naqsha Bus Stop, Muhamm8d Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. and two other persons, who were
in plain clothes, stopped him and made an attempt to rob him of rupees thirty but he did
not allow them to succeed in their design. The complainant was resident of Shah Jamal
Colony. He had no previous ill-will against the three Police officers. Even the Police
officers failed to show as to why the complainant had made out case against them. They
had no answer to that question. It vas stated by the complainant that he was taken to the
Police Station and at the instance of Shafqat Ali Chathha S. H. O., Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I.
robbed him of rupees thirty. There was no occasion for the complainant to level a false
allegation against the three accused. It was further stated by the complainant that he was
illegally confined at the Police Station. His version received corroboration from the
statement of his father and Muhammad Munir bailiff who was absolutely a disinterested
witness. It had been brought on the record that the father of the complainant filed habeas
corpus petition bearing No. 473-H-74, which came up before his Lordship Mr. Justice
Saleem Mazhar and a bailiff was deputed to recover the detenu vide order, dated 28th
June, 1974. The bailiff visited the Police Station Wahdat Colony and found the
complainant in handcuff in Quarter No. M/1 of Police Station and there was no entry in
the roznamcha before his arrival at Police Station, in respect of the arrest of the
complainant. Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. recorded report No. 10 in the roznamcha and
Shafqat Ali Chathha S. H. O. abetted him in making such an entry. The three accused
were convicted for contempt of Court vide order, dated 28th May, 1975 and sentenced to
undergo S.-1. for two months and a fine of rupees five hundred each. The appeal of
Zahoor Ahmad had abated on account of his death. The appeal filed by Shafqat Ali
Chathha was dismissed by the Supreme Court, whereas the appeal of Muhammad Anwar
Muharrir A. S.-I. was accepted. The father of the complainant was anxious for the release
of his son. While appearing as (P. W. 3) before the trial Court he stated that he visited
Police Station Wahdat Colony on 23rd June, 1974 when his son Nawazish Ali
complainant did not come back from the cinema house. He further stated in Court that he
met Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. and asked about his son who replied that he was
at the Police Station but when he asked about the offence, the Muharrir A. S.-I. told him
to sit at the Police Station. He further stated that he took along two/four persons of
mohallah and approached Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. and Chathha Thanedar but with no
success and ultimately he was constrained to file writ petition, on 26th June, 1974 when
he was shocked to see swelling on the body of his son. He further stated that he
accompanied the bailiff to Quarter No. M/1 on 28th June, 1974 and found his son
illegally confined. He fully corroborated the statement of Nawazish Ali complainant and
Muhammad Munir bailiff. He also stated that under the order of the High Court Nawazish
Ali was medically examined and nine injuries were found on his person. There is also a
mention in para. No. 1 of the order, dated 12th July, 1974 Exh. P. B. "On the request of
the learned counsel for the petitioner I directed the doctor Incharge of the Camp Jail;
Lahore to medically examine Nawazish Ali, as it was alleged that the Police during his
detention had manhandled and had given him severe beating. The doctor examined
Nawazish Ali, on 2nd July, 1974 and had submitted his report. According to the report
Nawazish Ali had nine injuries of the duration of ten-fifteen days, which period
corresponds to the detention period." Similar observation was made by His Lordship in
para. No. 5 of order dated 28th October, 1975 Exh. P. C. that the Jail Doctor examined
Nawazish Ali detenu on 2nd July, 1974 and submitted his report to this Court and that
according to his report the duration of the injuries sustained by the detenu was ten/fifteen
days and which corresponded with his detention period. It is provided in section 32 of the
Evidence Act, "Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is
dead, or who cannot be found. or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or
whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense which,
under the circumstances of the case, appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves
relevant facts in the following cases." Further, relevant provision would be section 32 (2)
of the Evidence Act which reads as under :-

"When the statement was made by such person in the ordinary course of business, and in
particular when it consists of any entry or memorandum made by him in books kept in
the ordinary course of business, or in the discharge of professional duty or of an
acknowledgment written or signed by him of the receipt of money goods, securities or
property of any kind, or of a document used in commerce written or signed by him, or of
the date of a letter or other document usually dated, written or signed by him."

Section 32 of the Evidence Act simply states that the statements, written or verbal, of
relevant facts, made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has
become incapable of giving evidence or whose attendance cannot be procured without an
amount of delay or expense, which under the circumstances of the case appears to the
Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts. Section 33 of the Evidence Act is for a
different purpose. It is provided in the said section." Evidence given by a witness in a
judicial proceeding, or before any person authorise by law to take it, is relevant for the
purpose of proving in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later state or the same
judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts, which it states, when the witness is dead or
cannot found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse
party, or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which,
under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable". Three provisos
have been added to section 33, firstly, that the proceeding was between the same parties
or their representatives in interest, secondly, that the adverse party in the first proceeding
had the right and opportunity to cross-examine; and thirdly, that the questions in issue
were substantially the same in the first as in the second proceeding. An explanation has
also been added to section 33 stating,' a criminal trial or inquiry shall be deemed to be a
proceeding between the prosecutor and the accused within the meaning of this section."
The facts of the case Allah Ditta v. The State were that the Sessions Judge transferred the
statement of a witness recorded by the committing Magistrate to Sessions file under
section 33 of the Evidence Act on the statement of the Investigating Officer who had no
personal knowledge of the whereabouts of the witness and who had not gone in search of,
or to execute the summon on the witness and who made statement before the Court that
the witness could not be served in spite of his best effort. The Sessions Judge ascertained
from the defence counsel and the defence counsel had no objection to the transfer of the
said statement. It was held that the Court had misapplied section 33, of the Evidence Act.
The facts of that case were quite distinguishable from the facts of this case. In the above-
referred case the statement of a witness recorded by the committing Magistrate was
transferred to Sessions file under section 33 of the Evidence Act on the statement of the
Investigating Officer who did not speak from his personal knowledge regarding the
uncertainty of the whereabouts of the witness Lala. In the second case Muhammad
Siddique and another v. The State the statements of Lady Doctor Zahida Ijaz and Dr.
Sajjad-ul-Qayyum were excluded from consideration on the ground that no attempt
seemed to have been made in examining the Police official who was entrusted with the
service of summons issued in the names of two doctors to prove his report about their
absence from the country with no immediate prospect of their returning. In the instant
case, the complainant was medically examined by Dr. Shafqat-ur-Rehman, who was
posted as Medical Officer Camp Jail, Lahore. It was reported by Superintendent Camp
Jail, Lahore, on 8th June, 1978 that Dr. Shafqat-ur-Rehman had left the country after his
transfer from the Jail. Rana Abdullah Khalid. Dispenser, Camp Jail,. Lahore (P. W. 1)
while appearing in Court stated that the doctor who medically examined Nawazish Ali
complainant was posted in Saudi Arabia in connection with his service abroad and was
out of Pakistan at the time of making the statement. This statement was not challenged in
cross-examination and his statement was accepted by the accused. It was not the case of
the accused that the doctor was still in Pakistan at the time when Rana Abdullah Khalid
(P. W. 1) made statement. Rana Abdullah Khalid stated in Court that according to the
medico-legal report, Nawazish Ali had nine injuries on his person. The said witness had
brought the original report. He proved the handwriting and signature of Dr. Shafqat-ur-
Rehman. He also compared the entry and certified copy Exh. P. A. with the original entry
in the register. Admittedly, the register as maintained by Dr. Shafqat-ur-Rehman was a
public document. Public document has been defined in section 74 of the Evidence Act.
Chapter V of the Evidence Act deals with the documentary evidence. It is provided in
section 61 of the Evidence Act that the contents of document may be proved either by
primary or secondary evidence, Primary evidence has been defined as document itself
produced for the inspection of the Court. Secondary evidence means and includes
certified copies made from the original by mechanical process which in themselves insure
the accuracy of the copy and copies compared with such copies, copies made from or
compared with the original etc. In the present case, the complainant had led the primary
evidence by producing the original register of medico-legal report. Certified copy Exh. P.
A. had been placed on the record and Rana Abdullah Khalid (P. W. 1) compared the
certified copies with the original and stated that it was the correct copy. Secondary
evidence is permissible under section 65 (e) of the Evidence Act. In the instant case the
complainant had led the primary as well as secondary evidence in producing the original
medico-legal register as well as its certified copy. Requirements of section 67 of the
Evidence Act had been met when the said witness stated that the relevant entry contained
the signature of Dr. Shafqat-ur-Rehman and he could recognize the signature.
Presumption of genuineness was attached to the medico-legal report under the provision
of section 79 of the Evidence Act. It is provided in section 79 of the Evidence Act, "The
Court shall presume to be genuine every document purporting to be a certificate, certified
copy or other document, which is by law declared to be admissible as evidence of any
particular fact and which purports to be duly certified by any officer of the Central
Government, or of a Provincial Government, or by any office in an Acceding State or
non-Acceding State who is duly authorised threat by the Central Government, to be
genuine:

Provided that such document is substantially in the form and purports to be executed in
the manner directed by law in that behalf.

The Court shall also presume that any officer by whom any such document purports to be
signed or certified, held, when he signed it, the official character which he claims in such
paper."

In view of the aforesaid provisions of the Evidence Act, the Court was competent to look
into the medico-legal report of Nawazish Ali complainant. The statement of Nawazish Ali
was corroborated by the medico-legal report. Even if the said medico-legal report was
kept out of consideration on account of the objection of the learned counsel for the
accused, the statement of the complainant received corroboration from the statement of
Syed S. M. Ijaz Ali. Muhammad Munir bailiff also stated in Court that the father of the
complainant had made a request for medical examination of the complainant who was
seriously injured but he replied that it was not possible without the order of the High
Court, as the complainant was in Police custody. Hurt has been defined in section 319, P.
P. C. It is provided in the said section that whoever causes bodily pain, disease or
infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. It is not necessary that in fact, there should
be marks of violence. If a person causes bodily pain to another person he is guilty of
causing hurt. In the instant case the complainant had clearly stated that he was beaten by
the three accused and he suffered bodily pain. The statement of the complainant did not
need any corroboration as he was disinterested against the accused. Even if the medico-
legal report was kept out of consideration on legal objection, the charge of causing hurt
stood proved. against Shafqat Ali Chathha and Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. The
appellate Court had taken an erroneous view in acquitting Shafqat Ali Chathha S.-I and
Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. of the charge under section 323, P. P. C. So far as
offence under section 323, P. P. C. was concerned, the appeal filed by Nawazish Ali
complainant is accepted against Shafqat Ali Chathha and Muhamnad Anwar Muharrir A.
S..I. Both of them shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and a fine of
Rupees five hundred each or in default in payment of fine to suffer S.-I. for two

It also stood proved from evidence that Nawazish Ali complainant was kept in illegal
custody by the three Police officers from 22nd June, 1974 till 28th June, 1974 without
any justification. He had been wrongfully confined for more than three days. Shafqat Ali
Chathha S.-I. and Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I were rightly convicted under
section 343, P. P. G. The appellate order in respect of the acquittal of Shafqat Ali Chathha
S.-I., from offence under section 343, P. P. C. is se aside. The order of the appellate Court
whereby the conviction of Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. was altered from section
343 to section 342, P. P. C., is also set aside. Both Shafqat Ali Chathha S.-I. and
Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. are convicted under section 343, p. P. C. and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years' each and a fine of Rupees one
thousand each or in default in payment of fine to suffer S.-I. for three months.

15. There was ample evidence on record to show that at the instance of Shafqat Ali
Chathha, Zahoor Ahmad A. S.-I. had robbed of the complainant of rupees thirty. Case
against Shafqat Ali Chathha under section, 392/109, P. P. C. stood proved. The order of
acquittal of Shafqat Ali Chathha, passed by the appellate Court in respect of offence
under section 392/109, P. P. C., is set aside. He shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for two
years' and a fine of rupees one thousand or in default S.-I. for three months under section
392/ 109, P. P. C.

Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. had made an attempt to commit offence under
section 392, P. P. C. and was thus guilty under section 392 read with section 511, P. P. C.
He is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of rupees five
hundred or in default in payment of fine to suffer S.-I. for two months. The substantive
sentences of Shafqat Ali Chathha S.-I. and Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-I. shall run
concurrently. The entire amount of fine, if recovered, shall be paid to Nawazish Ali
complainant as compensation. No lenient view could be taken on account of delay in the
disposal of the case as the accused themselves were responsible for the delayed disposal.
They did not allow the trial Court to complete the trial at an early date. They had been
sending medical certificates and had been making requests for adjournments. The trial
Court, with great difficulty, was able to complete the trial in a period of nearly six years.

16. The acquittal of Shafqat Ali Chathha S. H. O. and Muhammad Anwar Muharrir A. S.-
I. from offence under section 330, P. P. C. was justified as from the evidence, no case
under the said offence was made out.

M. Z. M. Order accordingly.