Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- S. 419 read with S. 415-Cheating by personation-Surety and attesting witness entering wrong description of themselves on bail bond and getting order of release-Not an offence under 5.419 but one under S. 205, P. P. C.-Necessity of amending S. 415. Where the surety and attesting witness in a bail bond for the personal attendance of an accused person in a Magistrate's Court gave wrong descriptions of themselves and got the Magistrate to make a release order in regard to the accused Held, that this did not constitute an offence under section 419, P. P. C., but one under section 205, P. P. C. While the question whether an article was or was not "property"did not depend upon its price in money or market value and that if the article had some special value for the person concerned, it was"property"even though its value could not be measured in money, it was doubtful whether the release order passed. by the Magistrate could be described as"property" within the meaning of section 415, P. P. C. A requirement of section 415 (cheating) was that the person received must have acted under the influence of the deceit and the Act of the person deceived caused or was likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. In the instant case, however, it was not clear whether false personation could have caused any harm to the Magistrate in his reputation as a responsible person. Muhammad Bakhsh and another v. Crown I L R 22 Lah. 718 ref. Further, that in the absence of a complaint from the Magistrate concerned, offence under section 205, P. P. C. could not have been taken cognizance of by the Magistrate who had tried the case. Necessity of amending section 415, P. P. C. pointed out. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)- S. 439-High Court acquitting convict in revision-May acquit also co-convict who had neither appealed nor preferred revision petition. Petitioner through jail. Dates of hearing: 2nd and 3rd February 1960.

Summary: Bail granted---(a) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860: ----Ss. 205, 420, 468, 471---False personation for bail---Forgery of bail bonds---Nature of offence---Scope of criminal liability. Petitioners sought pre-arrest bail in an FIR registered under Sections 420, 468, and 471 PPC for allegedly furnishing forged bail bonds in a private complaint. Supreme Court held that under Section 205 PPC, a person who falsely impersonates another and acts in a legal proceeding can be penalized. However, petitioners were not the sureties, and even if they were aware of the forged bail bonds, they could, at most, be charged under Section 109 PPC for abetment. The Court reiterated that Section 205 PPC is a non-cognizable offence, and no FIR could be registered for such an offence without following the procedure laid down in Section 195 Cr.P.C. ----Cited Cases: Gul Khan v. The State (2015 P Cr. L J 126) Attique-ur-Rehman v. The State (2000 P Cr. L J 703) (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898: ----S. 195---Prosecution for offences relating to court proceedings---Filing of FIR barred---Exclusive jurisdiction of court concerned. The Court held that offences under Section 205 PPC, when committed in relation to court proceedings, fall within the ambit of Section 195 Cr.P.C., which mandates that only the court where the offence occurred can initiate proceedings through a written complaint. FIR registration in such cases is not permissible, and any prosecution must follow the special procedure under Section 476 Cr.P.C. allowing the court to take cognizance and try the offence itself. The decision reaffirmed the principle that administrative justice should not be interfered with by external law enforcement. ----Cited Cases: Ch. Feroze Din v. Dr. K.M. Munir (1970 SCMR 10) Abdul Ghafoor v. The State (1984 P Cr. L J 381) (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: ----Art. 2(1)(c)---Definition of evidence---Production of documents in judicial proceedings---Bail bonds as documentary evidence. Court held that bail bonds, once submitted before a court, qualify as documentary evidence under Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Whether a document is forged or genuine must be determined by the court where it was produced, as mandated by Section 195 Cr.P.C. FIR registration for forged bail bonds contravenes this principle, as the appropriate remedy is a court-initiated action. ----Cited Cases: Ameer Khan v. The State (2013 YLR 1624) Muhammad Waris Ali v. The State (2013 P Cr. L J 1500) (d) Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973: ----S. 59---Elimination of touts in legal proceedings---Independent legal framework for prosecution. Prosecution argued that FIR registration was necessary to curb toutism in courts. The Court rejected this contention, holding that toutism is regulated under Section 59 of the Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973, which provides a separate mechanism for identifying and prosecuting touts. Allowing police intervention in court-administered matters would create procedural conflicts and disrupt judicial independence. (e) Grant of Pre-Arrest Bail: ----Ss. 498, 497 Cr.P.C.---Scope of pre-arrest bail---Question of further inquiry---Principles applied. Court reaffirmed that while deciding pre-arrest bail petitions, merits of the case can be examined to determine whether further inquiry is needed. Since no direct evidence linked petitioners to the alleged forgery, and FIR registration was procedurally improper, pre-arrest bail was confirmed. ----Cited Cases: Khair Muhammad v. The State (2021 SCMR 130) Javed Iqbal v. The State (2022 SCMR 1424) ----Disposition: Pre-arrest bail confirmed, subject to fresh bail bonds of Rs. 100,000 each. FIR registration declared improper under Section 195 Cr.P.C.