Offences Affecting The Administration Of Justice - Cases Relating To Offences Affecting The Administration Of Justice And Contempt Of Court - Rules And Orders Of The Lahore High Court, Lahore

CHAPTER 8
Cases relating to Offences affecting the
administration of justice and Contempt of Court

PART A-- OFFENCES AFFECTING THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

*[1. Complaint of offences mentioned in section 195 Cr. P.C. cannot be instituted by private individuals.- Under section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no court can take cognizance of the offences mentioned therein except on the complaint of the public servant or Courts specified in the section. The institution of proceedings is thus now left to the public servants or Courts concerned in the interest of justice and not to the discretion of private individuals who might obtain sanction for prosecution for the purpose of extorting blackmail from the person sought to be prosecuted against.

2. Successor of an officer before whom offence was committed can lodge complaint.- Section 476-A of the Code is supplementary to section 195 and it would appear from the wording of these sections that Courts can take cognizance of the offences mentioned therein suo motu or on application. The power is conferred on the court and not on the particular officer who presides over the Court and consequently the successor of a Magistrate or Judge is competent to proceed under the section (See section 559 of the Code).

Under section 476 of the Code, the Court may itself take cognizance of the offence and try it in accordance with the procedure prescribed for summary trials in Chapter XXII of the Code. When it does so, it may, notwithstanding the limitations prescribed in sub-section (2) of section 262 of the Code, pass the sentence in accordance with sub-section (2) of section 476.

When the Court considers that the person accused should not be tried summarily under section 476, it may, after recording the facts constituting the offence and the statement of the accused person, forward the case to a court competent to try the offence and may require security to be given for the appearance of such accused before such court or if sufficient security is not given, shall forward such person in custody to such court.

3. Main point to be considered by courts in initiating proceedings under section 476, Cr.P.C.- The power conferred by sections 476 and 476-A of the Code is a discretionary power and it is obvious that it should be examined not merely because an interested party wants a man to be proceeded against, but only when it is expedient in the interest of justice to examine it. The power being the power to prosecute and thereby to put a man in peril of conviction and sentence, it is well settled that resort should not be had to it unless a prima facie case is made out and unless there is reasonable chance of conviction. It must be borne in mind in this connection that indiscriminate institution of prosecution does not promote the interest of justice as failure of such cases is apt to encourage rather than discourage the offences. Then the mere fact that there is reason to believe that an offence has been committed may not in itself be sufficient to justify the prosecution of a man. As an example, it happens sometimes that a man, who has made a false statement at first, reverts to truth later on. To proceed against such a man for perjury would invariably be not in the interest of justice, as it would deter a man from reverting to truth even when he is inclined to do so.

That there is power in the Court, either to proceed against a person summarily under section 476, or to send his case for trial to another court, under section 476-A, shows that this question requires the application of judicial mind. In proceeding against a person under these provisions, a Court will be presumed to have been actuated by best motives of justice and fair play; yet during the hearing of the matter or examination of the person, something may have happened to leave him with a genuine impression that he will not have a fair trial. To illustrate, the presiding officer may have put too many questions to the person when under examination. Therefore, when the Presiding Officer feels that the summary trial of a person by him would violate the trite saying that justice should not only be done, but should be seen in the doing, he would exercise his discretion in favour of the person accused to be tried by another Court.]

4. Prosecution to be lodged without delay.-- There is nothing in section 476 which requires the Court to take action, if at all, immediately after the conclusion of the case in which the offence is alleged to have been committed or discovered or within any fixed time thereafter. Prompt action is of course desirable, and abnormal delay will usually be considered to be a good ground for refusing to take action. At the same time, Courts would, as a rule, exercise proper discretion in postponing action in appealable cases, till the decision of appeal, if one is filed. ^***[...]

*[5. Gross cases of false evidence should not be left over.- The offence of giving or fabricating false evidence (vide sections 191-196 of the Pakistan Penal Code) is unfortunately very common and should not be allowed to pass unnoticed.]

6. Special care to be taken in recording evidence where a witness appears to be giving false evidence. Contradictory statements and liability of being charged.-- When a witness appears to be giving false evidence and there is possibility of his being prosecuted, special care should be taken in recording the evidence in a precise and clear manner, reading it over to the witness and bringing it in conformity with what he declares to be the truth. For, ambiguities in the statement often furnish loopholes for plausible explanations and result in failure of justice. It should be noted that when contradictory statements are made before different Courts, and it is difficult to decide which of the two statements was false, the person making such statements can be charged in the alternative [vide section 236, Criminal Procedure Code, illustration (b).

7. ^***[Omitted].

8. Complaint can be lodged by the Court or by appellate Court.-- Section 195 provides that when any offence of the kind mentioned therein is committed in or in relation to proceedings in a Court, cognizance of the offence can be taken either on the complaint of that Court or some other Court to which such Court is subordinate. It is laid down in subsection (3) of that section that for the purposes of the section a Court is to be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such Court and in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court of original jurisdiction. It is further provided that where appeals lie to more than one Court, the appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction is the Court to which the Court making the complaint is to be deemed to be subordinate for the purposes of the section. As a result a Civil Judge from whose decrees appeals lie to the Senior Civil Judge as well as the District Judge must be deemed to be subordinate to the former for the purposes of section 195. ^***[...] Similarly a Magistrate empowered under section 30 of the Code, from whose decisions appeals lie to the Sessions Court as well as the High Court, would be deemed to be sub-ordinate to the Sessions Court.

9. ^***[Omitted].

10. ^***[Omitted].

*[11. Deterrent sentence in case of perjury.-- The law against perjury and allied offences should be fully vindicated against all persons who are convicted, and the Courts should impose deterrent sentences when convictions are recorded.]

LHC - Shahrah-e-Quaid-e-Azam - Lahore - Pakistan
Computer Cell, Lahore High Court.
Comments Or Suggestions to webmaster@lhc.gov.pk
For Further Information: info@lhc.gov.pk