Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 651 of 1958, decided on 20th June, 1958, under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. for quashing of prosecution proceedings under section 420, P. P. C. pending in the Court of Muhammad Azam Beg, Magistrate, 1st Class, Lahore.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561‑A‑When High Court may quash proceedings pending in subordinate Court Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439:
Ordinarily, the High Court does not interfere at an inter mediate stage of a criminal proceeding, pending in a sub ordinate Court, unless there is some manifest and patent injustice apparent on the face of the proceedings and calls for prompt redress.
Where the accused was summoned by the Magistrate under S. 420, P. P. C. on the bare statement of the complainant, which did not disclose any offence under that section, the High Court set aside the order summoning the accused and quashed the proceedings.
Yusuf Dehalwi and others v. Dr. Syed Laik Ahmad Hashmi A I R 1956 Patna 256 ref.
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860),. S. 420‑Essentials of offence Delivery of property induced by fraudulent or dishonest means necessary.
(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 200, 202, 203 & 204‑Supplementary of one another‑Statement of complainant on oath‑Foundation of case for issue of process.
(d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 420‑Crossword puzzle competition‑Complainant alleging that he was entitled to a prize Grievance of a civil nature.
Where the complainant's grievance was that he had submitted a correct solution of a crossword puzzle and thus was entitled to a prize of Rs. 8,000 but that he was not given a prize, and he lodged a complaint under S. 420, P. P. C. against the organizer of the puzzles.
Held, that the dispute between the parties depended upon the question whether a correct solution had been submitted by the complainant, the matter was purely of a civil nature for which complainant should seek his remedy in a Civil Court.
(e) Crossword puzzle competitions‑Form of gambling‑‑ Menace to healthy growth of society.
M. Bashir for Petitioner.
Ismail Bhatti for Respondent.
Dates of hearing : 5‑6‑58, 6‑6‑58, 16‑6‑58 and 17‑6‑58.
‑This is a petition under section 561‑A of the Code of Criminal Proeedure by Mr. Zafar Niazi; Managing Director of "Naqqad Limited, Karachi," for quashing of the proceedings, pending against him in the Court of Mr. Muhammad Azam, Magistrate 1st Class, Lahore. The proceedings have been initiated on a complaint filed by Mr. Riazuddin respondent under section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code.
2. This petition has arisen under the following circumstances. The petitioner publishes a monthly Magazine in Urdu, by the name of "Naqqad," in which he runs a competition known as "Naqqad Inami Muqabila." It is in fact a cross‑word puzzle competition. Every month, he offers prizes of the value of Rs. 1,00,000. The terms and conditions for participation in the competition are also published. The intending competitors can send as many solutions as they like, but they are required to pay Re. I for one solution, rupees two for two solutions, rupees two and annas eight for three and at the rate of annas twelve per solution for four and more than four solutions. The respondent was a competitor in the 73rd "Naqqad Inami Maqabila," and submitted three solutions. The result of this competition as well as the correct solution were published in "Naqqad" for the month of November 1957. This is Ex. P. A. The respondent found that one of his solutions was a correct solution, but his name was not published amongst the prize winners, whose names were published at page 75 of Ex. P. A. He then sent rupee one as checking fee, but did not get any reply. On the 29th of November 1957, he sent a letter to the petitioner, a copy of which is Ex. P. E. in which he alleged that one of the solutions sent by him was a correct solution, to which the petitioner sent the reply Ex. P. F. in which he stated that all the three solutions submitted by the respondent contained eight or nine mistakes in each solution. The respon dent then sent a notice to the petitioner through his lawyer, the copy of which is Ex. P. G. The petitioner sent his reply Ex. P. H. in which he reiterated, that the three solutions contained eight or nine mistakes in each solution. The respondent then filed a complaint on the 20th of February 1958. in which he alleged the facts narrated above and added that the petitioner realised lacs of rupees from the public every month, but acted dishonestly and fraudulently in distributing the prizes. He also alleged that the petitioner had from the very beginning no intention of distributing the prizes, and that he had realised the money from the respondent by cheating him.
His statement, as required by section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was recorded by the learned Magistrate on the same day, and on the basis of this statement alone arid without making any further enquiry into the matter, summons were issued to the petitioner under section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioner has, therefore, moved this Court for quashing of the proceedings and his learned counsel has con tended before me that on the facts alleged by the respondent in his complaint and in his statement, no offence under section 420, P. P. C. is made out against the petitioner.
3. Ordinarily, the High Court does not interfere at an, intermediate stage of a criminal proceedings pending in al, subordinate Court, unless there is some manifest and patent injustice apparent on the face of the proceedings and calls fort prompt redress.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that this is one of those cases in which this Court should interfere at this stage, because the facts sought to be proved do not constitute any offence, and continuation of such pro ceedings would, therefore, manifestly be but an abuse of the process of the Court and a harassment of the accused.
5. On a careful consideration of the facts alleged by the respondent, I have arrived at the conclusion that they do not constitute any offence. The burden of the complaint appears to be that one of the solutions submitted by the respondent was a correct solution and as such he was entitled to a prize of Rs. 8,000, but the petitioner did not give him this prize on the false plea that the three solutions submitted by the res pondent contained eight or nine mistakes in each solution. The names of the prize‑winners are to be found at page 75 of Ex. P. A. and they run into hundreds. The names and addresses of the two prize‑winners who received Rs. 8,000 each are also given. The allegation in the complaint that the petitioner had no intention of distributing the prizes at all, is not only not warranted by the facts on the file, but in fact is falsified by the documentary evidence on the record, on which the respon dent himself relies There is nothing to show that these names of the prize‑winners published in the "Naqqad" are fictitious names. I have very carefully read the statement of the respondent on the basis of which the learned Magistrate had issued the process against, the petitioner, and I find that in his statement the essential elements of the offence of cheating were not even alleged by the respondent. In order to constitute the offence r of cheating it is essential, in the first place, that the person ,who delivers property should have been delivered before he makes delivery, and in the second place that he should have been induced to do so fraudulently or dishonestly. Mr. Ismail Bhatti, the learned counsel for the respondent, conceded that the State ment of the complainant did not disclose any offence, but he contended that the complaint, at any rate, did disclose an offence under section, 420, P. P. C.
6. Section 190 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the Magistrates specified therein may take cognizance of any offence upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute such offence. It is a condition requisite for initiation of proceedings. But under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence on complaint, is bound to examine at once, the complainant on oath and he is required to reduce to writing the substance of the examination. There can be no doubt that the object of the examination is to enable the Magistrate to find out ,J the truth of the allegations made in the complaint. The proviso to subsection (1) of section 202, makes it obligatory on the Magistrate to examine the complainant on oath before directing :an inquiry or investigation under this section, save in the case where the complaint is by a Court. Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure empowers the Magistrate to dismiss a complaint without issuing a process but before he takes such a step he is required to consider the statement on oath (if any; of the complainant and the result of the investigation or inquiry. if any, under section 202,. Where the Magistrate does not dismiss the complaint under section 203, but is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, then he can issue process under section 204 for the attendance of the accused. In my opinion, the sections mentioned above are supplementary of each other and it is clear from a perusal of these sections, that if the proceedings are initiated on a private complaint, then the foundation of the case for the issue of the process to the accused is the statement of the complainant on oath. If such a statement does not disclose any offence, then the complaint itself cannot be made the basis for the issue of process to the accused. As I have already pointed out, the statement of the complainant in the present case did not disclose any offence, therefore, the petitioner could not have been summoned as an accused. Further, I am of the view, that even the allegations made in the complaint do not make out a case of cheating. A perusal of the complaint shows that the grievance of the complainant was that he had submitted a correct solution and that he was entitled to the prize of Rs. 8,000. The dispute between the parties, therefore, is, . whether a correct solution had been submitted by the respondent or not, and this is a matter purely of a civil nature for which the respondent should seek his remedy in a Civil Court. In my opinion no deception had been practised by the petitioner on the respondent, and there is nothing on the record to show that there was any criminal intention on the par of the petitioner.
7. In this view of the matter, considerations of justice themselves dictate the termination of these proceedings. I accordingly set aside the order of the learned Magistrate dated the 20th of February 1958, whereby the petitioner was summoned B to stand his trial section 420, P. P. C. and quash the proceedings. In almost similar circumstances proceedings were quashed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Yusuf Dehalwi and others v. Dr. Syed Laik Ahmad Hashmi (A I R 1956 Patna 256). That case related to the cross‑word puzzle competitions run by the monthly periodical 'Shama.'
8. Before concluding I would like to say that these cross word puzzle competitions‑are a menace to the healthy, growth of our society. In the hope of getting rich quicker, a large number of clerks, officials, businessmen, students, and even workers and labourers with a slight knowledge of how to read and write devote assiduously most of their precious time in solving these puzzles, which, to say the least, impairs their efficiency in their own respective spheres. It is nothing but a form of gambling in which the highest prize‑winner is no other than the organiser of F such a competition. He has nothing to lose but he gains immen sely at the expense of his innocent victims. It is high time that having regard to the high ideals of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan a law be enacted, banning altogether such cross‑word puzzle competitions. Will the legislators of our country find sometime to do this I understand that in Bharat the cross‑word puzzle competitions have been completely banned.
A.H. Petition accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer