Find a Lawyer

Petition No.RI-147 of 1984, decided on 23rd December, 1985.

---S. 38 (5)--Penal Code (%LV of 1860), Ss. 177, 196, 463 & 471- Criminal proceedings--Respondent in answer to application against him under S.38 (5), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 producing photo copies of power of attorney and agreement purported to have been executed by petitioners and received amount from employer on behalf of petitioners--Such documents photo copies whereof produced allegedly forged--Petitioners instituting complaint before Labour Appellate Tribunal on plea that respondent committed offences under Ss. 177, 196, 463 i 471 of Penal Code, 1860--None of such offences, held, appeared to have been committed by respondent while leading evidence in defence in proceedings against him under S.38 (5) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

Malik Muhammad Nawaz for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 18th December, 1985.

This is an application under section 195, Cr.P.C. for instituting a complaint against the respondent for producing photostat copies of forged documents.

2. The respondent is alleged to have forged power of attorneys and agreements purported to have been executed by the petitioners and received amounts from the employer on behalf of the petitioners. He is alleged to have produced photostat copies of the said documents in answer to an application brought against him under section 38 (5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It has been argued that A the respondent has committed offences under sections 177, 196, 463 and 471, P.P.C. I do not think that any of the said sections applies. Let us examine the sections one by one. So far as section 177 is concerned, it has been argued that wrong facts are mentioned in reply to the application for contempt of Court lodged by the petitioners under section 38 (5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Section 177 applies where one is bound to give information to a public servant but furnishes an information which he knows and has reason to believe that the same is false. An accused person is not required under the law to make or to give information. He is at liberty to make any statement in defence. Even oath cannot be administered to an accused person. Proceedings under contempt of Court are nevertheless criminal proceedings and if the offence is proved, the accused is to be punished. Same may be said in relation to section 196, P.P.C. An accused person is at liberty to give any evidence to defend himself against the charge. If his evidence given in defence is proved to be untrue, he cannot be prosecuted. If contrary view is taken, it would mean that an accused who has committed a crime is bound to confess it. So far as section 463 i.e. forgery is concerned, there is no evidence that prima facie the respondent himself forged the power of attorney or the agreements or he got the seals of the signatures of the petitioners prepared. The petitioners do not say that they had seen the respondent committing forgery, nor any forged document is on the record. The only section which in such cases may apply is section 471. It is to the effect that the person to be prosecuted should have fraudulently used as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe that it was forged. This section applies when any forged document has been produced in the Court. The respondent did not produce the original documents. The ones present on the file of the petition given under section 38 (5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 are photo copies. Since the documents which are alleged to be forged were not filed by the respondent in the suit, it cannot be said that he had used those documents. On the asking of the petitioners, this Court had ordered the respondent to produce the documents, photo copies of which he had filed but he did not produce the same. If he had produced them even then no offence under section 471 would have been committed by him because he would have produced the documents not of his own accord to use them but at the instance of the petitioners and compelled by the order of the Court. So in my view none of the offences pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners appears to have been committed by the respondent. No complaint, therefore, can be lodged, against the respondent.

3. As a result, the petition is rejected.

A. E. Petition rejected.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.