Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
By
Qaiser Javed Mian
Director Research/Faculty Member,
Punjab Judicial Academy, Lahore
S.H.O
12.
State
Registration
of
criminal
case---Taking
cognizance by the court---Registration of a
criminal case was entirely a different
phenomenon from the one, pertaining to the
taking of cognizance by a court of law on the
report under S.173, Cr.P.C---Complaint within the
meaning of S.195 Cr.P.C., could be made a part of
the prosecution record, even after the registration
of F.I.R.; as no compelling restriction was available
in that regard.
13.
State
14.
Fida Hussain
Versus
Government of Singh through Home Secretary
15.
Second F.I.R. in respect of the same offence--Judicial Magistrate refused to accept the
Investigating Officers recommendation for
cancellation of the second F.I.R.-Validity -Second F.I.R. seemed to be fabricated as
reported by the Investigating Officer in the wake
of submission of challan in respect of the first
F.I.R.---Magistrate passed impugned order in
haste after discussing evidence which was
not permissible under S.173, Cr.P.C. Second
F.I.R after the first one could not be considered
as true---Impugned order was set aside and
proceedings qua second F.I.R. were quashed .
Contention
of
petitioner/complainant
was
that
submission of report under S.173 by Police Official other
than S.H.O., was bad in the eyes of law and could not
be acted upon by the Magistrate and that allegations
contained in F.I.R. could only be resolved after recording
evidence---Validity---Under provisions of S.173 , Cr.P.C.
report of inquiry was to be submitted by the Incharge of
Police Station through Public Prosecutor---Under Police
Order, 2002, function of the Police Department had been
reorganized and under said reorganized system, S.H.O
was replaced by other Police Officer belonging to
the Investigating Department---In the present case
report under S.173, Cr.P.C. having been submitted
by Sub-Inspector, Incharge Investigation, same was
in accordance with the Police Order, 2002, which
could not be objected.
17.
Versus
S.S.P. Operation, Lahore
2010 YLR 944
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
20.
21.
24.
25.
Mst. Eram
27.
State
Karachi-High-Court-Sindh
29.
Doulat Ali
Versus State
2010 P Cr L J 1311
Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court
2010 PLD 1
Federal-Shariat-Court
31.
Rehan
Versus
2009 SCMR 181
State
Supreme-Court
34.
35.
Irshad Muhammad
Versus State
2009 P Cr L J 1458
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
36.
37.
Nazima Shahzadi
Versus
S.H.O. Police Station Pindi Ghee District Attock
2009 P Cr L J 751
Lahore High Court, Lahore
38.
Mansabdar
Versus
2009 MLD 641
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
State
39.
Hazaro
Versus
2009 YLR 2464
State
40.
Zufran Khan
Versus
State
2009 YLR 1874
Karachi High Court, Sindh.
Pre-requisite for taking cognizance in the matter, in
circumstances, was missing as the proceedings
proposed to be dropped against the applicant were not
based upon sufficient evidence---Sanction to prosecute
the applicant having not been obtained from the
competent Authority under S.6(5) of Pakistan
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 by the
prosecution, there were no basis for the Trial Court
to proceed with the prosecution against the
applicant---Impugned order was set-aside and
allowing application under S.561-A, Cr.P.C.
proceedings were quashed and applicant was
acquitted from the charges leveled against him.
41.
State
42.
44.
S.173--Submission
of
challan--Investigating Officer under law had to
submit a report/summary under S.173,
Cr.P.C. within a particular time to the
concerned Magistrate, who had to
scrutinize the matter on the basis of
material submitted before him by the
Investigating Officer and to pass an
appropriate order and not to act as a Post
Office.
45.
46.
Muhammad Haroon
Versus
2009 PLD 120
Karachi High Court, Sindh.
State
47.
Muhammad Rafique
Versus
2008 P Cr L J 351
State
Shariat-Court-Azad-Kashmir
S.
497---Penal
Code
(XLV
of
1860),
SS.
302/324/147/149---Bail, refusal of---Accused had
allegedly killed two persons, father and son, by firing--Post-mortem reports, of the deceased had supported the
causing of fire-arm injuries---Contention that during
investigation only two accused were found guilty of firing
on the deceased persons had no force, because
according to the report under S. 173, Cr.P.C., another
accused had, raised Lalkara telling others not to let the
deceased go alive and still another accused was present
at the place of occurrence armed with a gun---Presence
of other accused persons at the spot armed with lethal
weapons also was not denied and was established by
eyewitnesses---Accused, prima facie, had waylaid,
chased and killed the deceased and being members of
unlawful assembly were not entitled to concession of
bail---Bail was declined to accused in circumstances.
48.
Haleem
Versus -----------2008 PLD 1
Peshawar-High-Court-NWFP
50.
Muhammad Yousaf
Versus
State
2008 P Cr L J 1762
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
51.
S. 190(1)(b)---Cognizance of offences by
Magistrate---Magistrate under S.190(1)
clause (b), Cr. P.C. takes cognizance of
an offence upon report made by police
officer under S.173, Cr.P.C., which may
be positive or negative.
54.
55.
Muhammad Azam
Versus
Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad
2008 PLD 63
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
56.
State
57.
State
59.
60.
Ramshi
Versus
State
2008 YLR 1078
Karachi-High-Court-Sindh
S. 173 Cr.P.C. was not binding on the court and it
was for the court to decide, whether sufficient
material was available before it to join or not some
accused to the case, whose name had been placed
in column No. 2 of the challan---Before summoning an
accused, whose name appeared in column No. 2 to
face the trial, it was not requirement of law that, the
Trial Court should first record evidence, but the court
could directly summon him to stand trial---If
consequent to the police report an accused had been
discharged under S. 63 Cr.P.C., even in that case it
would not mean that he could not be summoned by
the court to stand the trial.
61.
Ghulam Sarwar
Versus
2008 YLR 704
Karachi-High Court-Sindh
State
62.
Bader Maqbool
Versus State
2008 MLD 1676
Karachi-High-Court-Sindh
SS.173 & 190---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 324--Purpose of examination of report under S.173 Cr.P.C.--For the purpose of examination of report under S.173,
Cr.P.C., office of Judicial Magistrate, would be
considered in two different categories, one as judicial
officer and other as administrative officer---While
functioning on administrative side, he would discharge his
duties as persona designata and not as a court, and while
discharging his duties as a persona designata, though he
was required to examine the material placed before him,
but was not bound to explain each and every aspect of
case and give its reason for acceptance and rejection--Offence under S. 324, P.P.C. was exclusively triable by the
court of Session---After receiving the report under S. 173,
Cr.P.C., Magistrate was therefore required to forward the
same to the Court of Session as provided under S. 190,
Cr.P.C. without recording evidence.
63.
64.
65.
66.
Malik Zahid
Versus
State
2007 YLR 1905
Peshwar-High-Court-NWFP
67.
Abdul Wahid
Versus
State
2007 PLD 65
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
69.
Shahid Hussain
Versus State
2007 YLR 1179
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
71.
State
State
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
75.
State
Karachi -High-Court-Sindh
SS.169, 170 & 173---Administration of criminal Justice--Crux of provisions of SS.169, 170 & 173, Cr.P.C. is
that whatever the course Investigating Officer adopts
i.e. whether he acts under S.169 or under S.170,
Cr.P.C., it is incumbent upon him to submit a final
report under S.173, Cr.P.C., with regard to the result
of his investigation to a competent Magistrate and the
said Magistrate, shall thereafter, take action as he may
consider proper under S.173, Cr.P.C. or under S.190,
Cr.P.C. as the case may be ---Principles.
78.
79.
High Court had directed that the petitioners before it in the constitutional
petition who were accused persons in an F.I.R., would not be treated as
accused and would not be challaned in the case, only because the
Investigating Officer had informed the High Court that the involvement of the
said accused persons in the case could not he established and that they had
not forged any document or offered any kind of inducement to the
complainant to secure any pecuniary benefit---Investigation according to S.
4(1), Cr.P.C only meant collection of evidence and no more---Determination
of guilt or innocence of the accused persons was an obligation cast on the
Courts of law which task could never be permitted to be delegated to the
police officers investigating a case---Provisions of S. 63, Cr.P.C. had
prohibited discharge of an accused person except under a special order of a
Magistrate---Rule 24.7 of the Police Rules, 1934, had also prohibited
cancellation of F.I.Rs without the orders of the Magistrate---Provisions of
S.173, Cr.P.C. had provided only that after the available material had been
collected by the S.H.O. during investigation, result of the same had to be
reported to the Magistrate competent to take cognizance under S. 190,
Cr.P.C. and thereafter the Magistrate was to decide whether the accused did
or did not deserve to be tried---Impugned order passed by High Court
only on the alleged opinion of the Investigation Officer, therefore, was
not sustainable and the same was set aside by converting the petition for
leave to appeal into appeal which was allowed---S.H.O. was directed to
proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
82.
83. Israruddin
Versus
2006 MLD 143
State
Peshawar-High-Court-NWFP
84.
Muhammad Akhtar
85.
Nazar Hussain
Versus
2006 YLR 631
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
State
86.
Muhammad Younis
Versus
2006 P CR L J 994
State
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
87.
88.
Gahna Khan
Versus
State
2006 MLD 1492
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
Whenever a matter would come to the court for
taking cognizance, the Court would take
cognizance of the whole of the matter and not
only against accused sent for trial---If Trial Court
was satisfied about the involvement of petitioner,
then it was within cognizance/jurisdiction of the
Trial Court to summon him as well to face trial
irrespective of the fact that he was not shown as
accused in the report under S. 173,Cr.P.C.
Direction of trial court to the Agency for
submission of a supplementary challan against
petitioner and his co-accused, was not
justifiable.
State
Karachi-High-Court-Sindh
90.
State
Karachi-High-Court-Sindh
91.