Find a Lawyer

decided on 15th Decem ber 1958, District Lyallpur.

perjured statements in murder case May be removed under Rule 16 (e), Land Revenue Rules, even though he was not prosecuted for perjury.

P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 1140 ref.

Hasan Akhtar for Petitioner.

On 18‑8‑1956, when petitioner Muhammad Riaz, ex‑Lambardar, returned from Toba Tek Singh, he was told by his tenant Shaman that Najabat and Bail had code to see him during his absence, The petitioner sent his tenant to call them and on their arrival enquired the purpose of their visit. They replied that Allah Jawai, wife of Najabat, had run away, and they wanted the petitioner to accompany them to the police station for lodging a report. Later on they made an extra‑judicial confession before the petitioner to the effect that they had murdered her and buried her in killa No. 13. The petitioner reported these facts to the police by lodging the F. I. R. which he signed and which was read over to him. Later on the petitioner made this statement before the Committing Magistrate. .In the Court of Sessions the petitioner altered his statement and stated that Najabat and Baig had not made the extra‑judicial confession before him but that Shaman told him that they had murdered Allah Jawai. On these facts the petitioner was dismissed from Lambardari by the Collector and this order was confirmed by the Commissioner on appeal.

From the facts stated above, it is clear that the petitioner made two contradictory statements, one before the police and the Com mitting Magistrate and the other before the Court of Sessions. The contradiction was in a very important particular viz. whether Najabat and Baig had made an extra‑judicial confession before the petitioner. One of these statements must be false. It is clear that a person who adopts such a course frustrates the administration of justice and clearly fails to give his active support to Government. In the maintenance of law and order for which he may be removed under rule 16 (e) of the Land Revenue Rules.

The counsel for the petitioner relied on P L D 1950 Pb'. (Rev.) 1140. In that case the Lambardar was alleged to have made one statement under section 161 of the Cr. P. C. and a contra dictory statement before the Magistrate. It was not proved that the Lambardar in that case had actually made the alleged statement before the police. Under these circumstances that case is clearly distinguishable from the present case in which there is no doubt that the petitioner made one statement before the Committing Magistrate and a contradictory statement before the Court of Sessions.

It was alleged that the proper course for the prosecution in this case was to file a petition for the trial of the petitioner for perjury. That course was open to the prosecution whether the person concerned was a Lambardar, like the petitioner, or not. The petitioner was not only an ordinary individual but also a Lambardar in which capacity he had certain rights and duties. Failure to perform those duties rendered him liable to dismissal. This is a case in which the petitioner has failed to discharge those duties. That being so, the mere fact that he was not prosecuted for perjury is no bar to his removal from the post of a Lambardar.

I am satisfied that there was ample justification for the order passed and that there has been no miscarriage of justice.

The result is that the petition is rejected in limine.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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