Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
- Special Magistrate appointed under S. 14-Subordinate to District Magistrate not only in respect of
his executive but also of judicial functions – Special Magistrate having wider territorial jurisdiction
than that of District Magistrate – Appeal lies from order of such Special Magistrate to Sessions
Judge within local limits of whose jurisdiction Special Magistrate holds his Court in disposing of
cases.
Mansha Muhammad Khan Versus The State
PLD 1983 Azad J & K 36
Before Muhammad Sharif, J
- (a) Criminal trial-“Acquittal”-Meaning-Court not having territorial jurisdiction to try offender-Cannot
pass an order of his acquittal.
Sardar Muhammad Yasin Khan, Advocate
Versus
Raja Feroze Khan
PLD 1972 Azad J & K 46
Before Khawaja Muhammad Yusuf Saraf, J
- Criminal trial-Jurisdiction-Trial Court holding that it lacked jurisdiction to try case-Cannot pass
order of acquittal of accused-Proper course for Magistrate in circumstances-To return complaint to
complainant for presentation in Court of competent jurisdiction.S.531- Section does not confer any
jurisdiction not otherwise possessed by Magistrates - Magistrate far from deciding case on merits,
preliminarily holding that he lacked jurisdiction to hear case - Protection available under section 531
cannot be sought in circumstances - Section merely protects trials finalized without defect of
territorial jurisdiction being discovered in trial Court.
Sardar Muhammad Yasin Khan, Advocate
Versus
Raja Feroze Khan
1969 P Cr. L J1414 (Azad J & K)
Before Khawaja Muhammad Yusuf Saraf, J
SECTION 4(1) CR.P.C.
- There is no bar against re-investigation of case after submission of report under S.173, Cr.P.C.,
yet the fact remains that ultimately case has to be decided on the basis of evidence recorded before
Trial Court---Purpose of investigation, as defined under S. 4(1), Cr.P.C. is collection of evidence by
police officer or by any other person who is authorized by Magistrate in this behalf---As such
definition of investigation does not talk of opinion of police officer who is only authorized to collect
evidence, therefore, opinion of police officer is neither relevant nor admissible in evidence---
Frequent transfers of investigations deprecated.
Javaid Iqbal
Versus
Additional Inspector General of Police, Lahore
2008 PLD 488
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
SECTION 4(h) CR.P.C.
- Section 4(h), Cr.P.C. specifically excluded the report of Police Officer from the domain of word
“complaint”---Report submitted under S.173, Cr.P.C. could not be considered to be a complaint as
provided by S.4(h), Cr.P.C.---Section 195, Cr.P.C., placed a specific embargo upon the Trial Court to
take cognizance on the report of Police Officer.
Hafiz Muhammad Iqbal Versus State
2009 P Cr L J 934
Lahore High Court, Lahore
SECTIONS 9, 178 & 193
- Ss. 9, 193 & 178---Provincial Government is competent to set up venue for the trial of cases of a
particular accused and also nominate any Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge to try those
cases which are to be specified by the said Government in Notification/Notifications---No intervention
of High Court for transfer of cases from one territorial jurisdiction to another was thus called for and
the reference from Sessions Judge in this regard was disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
1990 P Cr. L J 1687 [Karachi]
Before Syed Sajjad Ali Shah, CJ
In re: REFERENCE MADE BY SESSIONS JUDGE,
LARKANA FOR TRANSFER OF CASES
SS.18 &17---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), SS.169, 170 & 173—Filing of Reference before
Accountability Court by the Chairman National Accountability Bureau---Mode and procedure---
Applicability of SS.169, 170 & 173, Cr.P.C.---Scope and extent---Provisions of SS.169, 170 & 173
Cr.P.C. being not inconsistent with any of the provisions of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999,
are applicable to proceedings under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 but with necessary
adaptations and changes as detailed by High Court---Direction of the law is that the accused should
be forwarded to custody at the time of filing of reference if the Chairman National Accountability
Bureau or any officer of the Bureau duly authorized violates such direction then he is exposing
himself to the provisions of S.166 P.P.C. which provide that disobedience of direction of law is an
offence; furthermore cases should be disposed of expeditiously within a period of 30-days---
Principles.
Zahoor Ahmed Sheikh
Versus
Chairman, National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad.
2007 PLD 243
Karachi -High-Court-Sindh
SECTIONS 17, 18 & 24
- SS.17, 18 & 24---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), SS.169, 170 & 173---Reference to
Accountability Court by the Chairman National Accountability Bureau---Procedure---Chairman
National Accountability Bureau is required to forward the accused in custody to the Accountability
Court at the time of filing reference or if the accused is released under S.169, Cr.P.C. or absconded
then such facts should also be mentioned in the Reference so that the Accountability Court my
exercise powers provided under S.173(3), Cr.P.C.---High Court observed that the References that
have already been filed in which the accused persons have not been forwarded in custody or shown
released or absconded at the time of filing Reference, the Trial Court shall take appropriate steps to
procure their attendance as per law.
Zahoor Ahmed Sheikh
Versus
Chairman, National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad.
2007 PLD 243
Karachi -High-Court-Sindh
SECTION 22-A & 25 CR.P.C.
- Ss.22-A & 25 [as amended by Code Of Criminal Procedure (Third Amendment) Ordinance
(CXXXI of 2002)]---Ex-Officio Justice Of The Peace, Powers of---Amendments introduced in Ss.22-A
& 25, Cr.P.C. had been so made to lessen the excessive burden of the High Courts which was got
created through tiling of writ petitions seeking registration of criminal cases and transfer
of investigation---supreme court observed that if this be so, then Supreme court would not be sure
about the questionable wisdom leading to these amendments which sought to relieve an elder
brother of his burden by adding the same on to the back of an already over-loaded younger brother-
--Copies of the present judgments were directed to be sent to Registrars of all the four High Courts
in the country who shall, in turn, send the same to al the Sessions Judges in their respective
provinces for their guidance and compliance---Law Secretaries of the Federation and the provinces
will also be sent the copy of the judgment for re-examining the matter of the amendments in question
in the light of observations made in the judgment.
Muhammad Bashir Versus Station House Officer, Okara Cantt.
2007 PLD 539
Supreme-Court
SECTIONS 28, 29 & 30 CR.P.C.
CHAPTER III AND
HIGH COURT RULES (Volume-III)
- Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C)----Ch. III---Scope and application, Chapter III, Cr.P.C, deals
with powers of courts. It describes offences cognizable by different courts. Section 28 relates to the
offences under Penal Code. It provides that subject to the other provisions of the Criminal Procedure
Code any offence under Pakistan Penal Code may be tried by the High Court, or by the Court of
Session, or by any other Court by which such offence is shown in the eighth column of the 2nd
Schedule to be triable. Section 29 relates to the offences under other laws. It provides that subject to
the other provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure any offence under any other law shall, when
any Court is mentioned in this behalf in such law, be tried by such Court. It further provides that
when no Court is so mentioned, it may be tried by the High Court or subject as aforesaid by any
Court constituted under the Criminal Procedure Code by which such offence is shown in the eighth
column of the Second Schedule to be triable.
Saeed Shah Versus The State
1991 PLD 66
Federal Shariat Court
- Sections 28 & 30-- Criminal Procedure Code cannot be read in conjunction with each other—
Words “subject to other provisions in this Code” appearing in S.28, Cr.P.C., held, not
referable/relatable to S.30, Cr.P.C. but they refer to Ss. 190(3), 193, 346 & 347, Criminal Procedure
Code which deal with manner of taking cognizance of an offence by a Court of Session, which is not
a Court of original jurisdiction--Section 30 of Criminal Procedure Code is only an enabling section
and it only confers enhanced powers on a Magistrate First Class.
Ghulam Hussain and others Versus The State.
1985 P Cr. L J 2334 [Lahore]
Before Qurban Sadiq Ikram, J
- Sched. Item 2---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 203-Dd---Powers and jurisdiction of Federal Shariat
Court---Vires of statue---According to the amendment effected in item 2 of Sched. of Anti-Terrorism
Act, 1997 dated 21-8-1997, the Federal Government in exercise of power vesting in it under section
3 of the Anti-terrorism Act, 1997 authorized the Anti-terrorism Courts to try some categories of
offences relating to Hudood without providing a rider in section 25(i) of the said Act that appeals in
cases involving Hudood offence would lie to the Federal Shariat Court---Said amendment in the
Schedule without corresponding change in S.25(i) offends the constitutional provision contained in
Art.203-Dd which confers exclusive jurisdiction upon Federal Shariat Court in cases relating to the
enforcement of Hudood---“Any case decided by any criminal court under any law relating to the
enforcement of Hudood” is to be heard and decided by the Federal Shariat Court alone---Such
position is therefore travesty of legal constraint imposed by the Constitution.
Mian Abdur Razzaq Aamir
Versus
Federal Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
2011 PLD 1
Federal-Shariat-Court
- Scope of review, in civil cases, was wider than the criminal cases; in a civil case, if a mistake or
error apparent on the face of record or any other sufficient reason was discovered which called for
review, then review jurisdiction could be exercised for avoiding injustice, but that would depend upon
the facts and circumstances of each case---In the present case, appreciation of important, cogent
documentary evidence was not discussed in the judgment under review; rather the judgment was
totally silent in that regard, which had clearly proved that said cogent evidence remained unattended
by the court--- such would depict that the material evidence was not considered and appreciated
while delivering the judgment under review which was a sufficient reason for acceptance of review
petition---review petition was allowed.
Haji Nazeer Ahmed Versus Raja Muhammad Saeed Khan
2010 PLD 47
Supreme-Court-Azad-Kashmir
- Ultimate goal sought to be achieved by the Courts was thus to do complete justice between the
parties and to ensure that the rights were delivered to those to whom they belonged and no hurdles
were ever considered strong enough to detract the courts from reaching the said end---Incorporation
of provision such as section 151, C.P.C.; S.561-A in the Cr.P.C.; revisional powers of wide amplitude
exercisable even suo motu under section 115 of the C.P.C.; and S.439 of the Cr.P.C. various
provisions of the like contained in O. XLI, Rule 4 and O. XLI, Rule 33 of the C.P.C.; the provisions
of O.XXXIII, Rule 5 of the Supreme court Rules of 1980; suo motu powers exercisable under Art.
184(3) of the Constitution and provisions of Art.187 of the constitution were some of the examples
which could be quoted as having been made available to the courts at all levels to surmount any
impediments which a court might confront in the path of doing complete justice.
- Once a judicial determination, be it of a point of fact or of a point of law, has been made and if
such a determination covers not only the ones litigating before the courts but some others also, then
the dictates of justice would command that the benefits accruing from such a determination should
not be restricted only to the litigating parties but should be extended even to those who had not
indulged in litigation unless there were some extraordinary unexceptionable reasons to the contrary
and that all powers, including the powers inherent in the courts be invoked for the purpose---Such
would not only ensure justice for all but would also have the effect of eliminating unnecessary
litigation.
Saddaquat Ali Khan Versus Collector Land Acquisition
2010 PLD 878
Supreme-Court
- Early disposal of cases---Supreme Court while identifying the causes of delay, ordered few steps
to be taken for the exercise of powers of Magistrate and Sessions Court in the light of various
provisions of the criminal procedure Code, 1898, to adopt a uniform procedure in the courts to have
expeditious deposal of the cases---Supreme Court directed that a copy of the present order be sent
to Registrars of all High Courts for circulating amongst all the Judges and Magistrates for
implementation and strict compliance---Sessions Judges of the Districts were directed to supply a
copy of the order to the District Bar Associations of their Districts for information and strict
compliance---Copy of the order was directed to be sent to PPO/IGPs of all the Provinces and
Federal Capital for strict compliance---PPO/IGPs should issue special instructions to all SHOs and
concerned officers to produce all the witnesses before the Court of Session for trial, failing which
strict action as permissible under the law should be taken with information to the concerned
Sessions Judge and High Court.
Muhammad Ramzan Versus Rahib
2010 PLD 585
Supreme-Court
- Administration of justice---argument that all procedures were meant to advance cause of justice
and non-observance of any provision would not vitiate the trial, was not untrue in totality, but
difference was between the inadvertent failure to follow procedure and deliberate non-observance of
provisions-If practice as adopted by the Trial Court was allowed on the pretext that trial was
completed by the court without any prejudiced to accused, though not in accordance with mandatory
provisions of the Code, it would create a tendency of fleeing from law and then to a stated
lawlessness---Law had to be observed as it was, not as it should be or in a manner not authorized
by law---Procedural irregularities in civil matters were different than in criminal matters; in civil
matters if substantial justice was done, procedure could yield to justice, but in criminal cases,
substantial justice could not be said to have been done if due process of law was not observed---
Due process of law was the golden rule, not the selected process-
- Internal administrative arrangement of an institution as to how business had to be regulated or
done or who was to conduct business, related to administrative skill but the right and liabilities
creating powers had to be exercised in accordance with law, not over and above the law as nobody
was above the law including the law makers themselves---Trend to deviating from legal procedure in
the name of speedy disposal of cases was dangerous tendency---Marked difference existed
between the Speedy Trial Court, Special Courts, Summary Trial Court and the courts of normal
criminal and civil jurisdiction---Courts of every category had to act strictly in accordance with
procedure which was prescribed for it---Court was duty bound make best use of even a bad law---
Harshness of a law could be softened by its wise application and interpretation---Courts could not
amend law---Competent Courts declare a law ultra vires the constitution, but as long as it wasp on a
Statue Book, no reform or policy could override it---Courts, however, could change earlier
interpretation or view in view of changed circumstances, but not the law.
Hakam Deen Versus State
2006 PLD 43
Supreme-Court-Azad-Kashmir
- Were two or more Special courts had jurisdiction, wholly or partly in same territorial limits. High
Court was empowered under S. 4-A, Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 to
transfer any case from one Special Court to another in interest of justice or for convenience of
parties or of witnesses---Enabling provision of S. 4-A of the Act would not have effect of curtailing
powers of High Court to transfer case as provided under S.526, Cr.P.C---Powers of High Court
under Criminal Procedure Code transfer a case from one Court to another having not been
specifically excluded under S.4-A of Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975,
same would remain intact.
Muhammad Afzal Versus State
1999 YLR 1279
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
- Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997---Preamble---Establishment of Special Court---Ouster of
jurisdiction of Civil Courts---Principles---Failure or omission of designated Authority to frame
necessary rules in exercise of powers conferred by Legislature, could not be construed as having
effect of rendering statute nugatory and unworkable---While interpreting statutes conferring exclusive
jurisdiction on designated Tribunals, Jurisdiction of ordinary Civil Courts would stand ousted only
when such statutory fora were actually established---Question of conflict between requirements of
Criminal Procedure Code and Special Law could arise only when Special Courts exercising excusive
jurisdiction were actually established and a Sessions Court would not stand divested of jurisdiction to
try offence till such time.
Aslam Versus State
1999 P CR L J 1033
Karachi-High-Court-Sindh
- Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C)----S. 6---Classes of Criminal Courts---Classification of
Magistrates as laid down by S.6 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 does not make a Magistrate
invested with powers under S.30, Cr.P.C. a different class of Court.
Muhammad Ramzan alias Jana
Versus
State
1998 P CR L J 210
Lahore -High-Court-Lahore
- Statement that “wrong orders should be corrected at the time they are passed because it would
take less time for the case to conclude” is a wrong or at least misstatement in present state of law,
practice, procedure and proceedings in the courts of law---Such a statement might have been true
half a century to quarter century ago, as thereafter the challenge to the interlocutory orders had
brought about a deluge in the administration of criminal justice for cases started piling up with the
result that the concept of speedy justice came to a grinding halt and powers that many be, started
thinking of curtailing remedies even reducing the right of appeals---Little change of practice in the
technical field, for example amendment vis-à-vis the subject in S.197, Cr.P.C., would not bring in the
need to curtail the remedies as that too in the stage where Pakistan is passing, might be counter
productive.
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C)---Ss. 61, 167 & 344
- Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C)---Ss. 61, 167 & 344--Criminal Trial--Guidelines for Trial Courts
-- Courts enjoy a pivotal position in administration of criminal justice--Criminal Procedure at every
step places a Court as a guard not only to prevent encroachments upon rights of individuals but also
to check misfeasance and mal-feasance of police authorities and investigating officers, but courts
relegate themselves to the position of mere silent spectators and have left themselves to the mercy
of police, investigating, prosecuting and process-serving agencies--Courts normally exercise
restraint in interfering with police investigations, but this does not mean that Investigating Officers
have unbridled powers to do just what they want during investigation and toy take as long as they
desire in completing the same--Strict adherence to provisions of Sections 61, 167 and 344 Cr.P.C.
and demanding strict compliance thereof by courts was desired by High Court.
- Courts must insist on submission of challans within fifteen days of arrest of accused person and
in absence thereof must refuse to authorize further detention as also postponement of trails unless a
really valid and satisfactory cause is shown to deviate from this principle---Courts have ample
powers to meet the increasing menace of non-appearance of witnesses or non-production of
accused persons from jail which are bestowed upon courts for being exercised effectively---Such
luxuries on the part of police, prosecution, jail authorities or witnesses must be met by resort to
coercive and penal measures against delinquents and posture of helpless passive onlookers
adopted by Trial Courts should be met with exemplary measures---Ultimate responsibility of
administration of justice rests with courts---Police and Investigating agencies are only instruments to
assist them in discharge of this responsibility---Courts are operators and not slaves of these tools---
Courts if at any stage feel that these instruments have got blunted or rusted, then courts must
sharpen and chisel them through lawful means.
Ashfaq Ahmad Alias Shakoo Versus State
1989 PLD 4777
Lahore -High-Court-Lahore
- Criminal Trial----Review powers of ---No power to review its own orders to lower courts under
Criminal Procedure Code – All orders regarding disposal of property, excepting exparte orders, final.
Fazal Hussain Versus The State
1976 P CR L J 747
Lahore -High-Court-Lahore
SECTION 63 Cr.P.C.
- S.63---Discharge of accused---Jurisdiction of Magistrate---Scope---Magistrate is competent under
S.63, Cr.P.C to Discharge accused, when he is taken into custody in any case triable by Magistrate,
Court of Session or any Special Court---Provisions of S.63, Cr.P.C. empowers a Magistrate to
Discharge arrested accused person irrespective of the fact, whether or not he himself is competent
to try him in case of submission of challan against him.
Mst. Mehnaz
Versus
Judicial Magistrate Ist Class/ Civil Judge, Attock
2008 YLR 1669
Lahore High Court, Lahore
SECTION 63 Cr.P.C.
- After completion of investigation and submission of case Magistrate concerned had power to
Discharge accused under S.63, Cr.P.C. in case of his innocence, that in case Magistrate found
accused innocent, he would refuse to take cognizance of the matter; that Rule 24.7 of the Police
Rules, 1934 made a provision for cancellation of cases during the course of investigation under the
orders of the concerned Magistrate and that remedies were available to accused who claimed to be
innocent and could seek relief without going through the entire length of investigation.
Ghulam Yasin Versus D.S.P
2010 P Cr L J 946
Lahore High Court, Lahore
SECTION 63 & 561-A Cr.P.C.
- Discharge of accused---Exercise of discretion by Magistrate---Principles---Accused were
Discharged by Magistrate under S.63 Cr.P.C. on the ground that alleged forged document was also
subject-matter of civil suit pending before civil court and no complaint was filed by the court
concerned---Order passed by Magistrate was maintained by Lower Appellate Court but High Court in
exercise of powers under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. set aside the discharge order---Validity---Magistrate
concerned had discretion to pass order under S.63, Cr.P.C to discharge accused persons---Such
discretion must be exercised by the concerned Magistrate justly and fairly; in case discharge order
was passed by Magistrate mechanically without application of his independent mind to the facts of
the case, blindfolded acceptance of a recommendation of police in that regard, perversity of
reasoning and adoption of a procedure which offended against letter and spirit of law, relating to
discharge, then High Court had ample jurisdiction to interfere and set aside such order under S.561-
A Cr.P.C.
Hidayatullah and Others.
Versus
The State through Advocate General, NWFP,
Peshawar High Court, Peshawar.
2006 SCMR 1920
SUPREME COURT
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C)----Ss. 87, 88 & 90
- Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C)----Ss. 87, 88 & 90---Administration of justice---Duty of Court
stated. The subordinate courts must bear in mind that administration of justice is essentially the
obligation of the courts of law. The agencies such as the Police, the Prosecutors and the Process-
Servers are merely instruments provided to the courts of law for their assistance in the discharge of
this obligation. The courts of law cannot, therefore, abdicate their powers and duties in favour of
these agencies and become passive spectators in the administration of justice or sit only as
dummies placed in the citadel of justice who are incapable of doing anything on their own and are at
the complete mercy of others for the performance of their functions.
Waris Iqbal Versus The State
1991 P CR L J 1978
Lahore -High-Court-Lahore
SECTION 145 CR.P.C.
- S. 145---Judicial requirements for assumption of jurisdiction under S.145, Cr.P.C are (i) existence
of a dispute, (ii) such dispute is likely to cause breach of peace, (iii) dispute is concerning land,
water, building, markets, fisheries, crops or other produce of the land and the rents or profits of such
property, (iv) dispossession if alleged is within two months prior to the initial order passed by the
Magistrate, and (v) dispute is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned.
- S.145---Object of---Purpose behind S.145, Cr.P.C. is to enable the Executive Authorities to
maintain status quo till the parties have their matter decided by the Civil Court of competent
jurisdiction.
Mst. Nasim Akhtar Versus The State and others
1996 P Cr. L J 560 [Lahore]
Before Tassaduq Hussain Jilani, J
- Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C)----S. 145---Powers of Criminal Courts in proceedings under
S.145, Cr.P.C., regarding immovable property, which is subject-matter of such proceedings, are
subordinate to powers of Civil Courts, which have dealt with same property.
Muhammad Hussain Versus State
1990 P CR L J 827
Karachi-High-Court-Sindh
SECTIONS 161, 223, 219, 109, 120-B CR.P.C.
- Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 S.5(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S, 161/ 223/219/109/120/-
B---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Suo
Motu notice issued to accused by High Court for cancellation of bail---Law had conferred suo motu
powers of revision on High Court to ensure that the courts subordinate to it had acted strictly within
the legal bounds without transgressing their jurisdiction and the findings, sentence or orders
recorded or passed by them were just and legal, but nevertheless in order to avoid any impression of
arbitrariness in the exercise of such power, the order of initiating suo motu proceedings by the High
Court should have mentioned the ostensible error or irregularity in the orders or proceedings of the
subordinate courts in order to enable the parties to know the reasons for such an action---High court,
no doubt, had the jurisdiction to initiate suo motu proceedings by issuing notice to the accused for
cancellation of his bail, but in view of the well reasoned order of the Special Judge granting bail to
the accused, no circumstances justifying the suo motu action against him by the High Court were
available---Petition for leave to appeal was consequently converted into appeal and the suo motu
proceedings initiated by the High Court against the accused were quashed.
Waqar Hussain Versus State
2000 SCMR 735
Supreme-Court
Ss.169, 170 & 173 Cr.P.C.
- Ss.169, 170 & 173---cancellation of F.I.R---Powers of Investigating Officer and Magistrate---
Investigating Officer can dispose of F.I.R. as cancelled if he finds the same false, founded on
mistake of law or a dispute of civil nature or untraceable, after taking all necessary steps to the best
of his endeavour and ability, but order of cancellation of F.I.R. must be obtained from a Magistrate
competent to take cognizance of the offence and to try the case, or to send the matter for trial to
higher Court.
Mst. Eram
Versus
Muhammad Adnan Chaudhry
2010 YLR 1580
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.
Zahoor Ahmed Sheikh
Versus
Chairman, National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad.
2007 PLD 243
Karachi -High-Court-Sindh
SECTION 169 Cr.P.C.
- S.169---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Magistrate had
discharged the accused while cancelling the case under S.169, Cr.P.C.---Validity---Evidence against
the accused on record was deficient, on the strength of which the accused could not have been sent
to face trial, because it would have been a futile exercise and wastage of time of the Court---
Magistrate had passed the impugned order after consulting the record and making discussion
therein, to which no exception could be taken---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.
Mst. Amna Bibi Versus State
2008 P Cr. L J 956
Lahore High Court, Lahore.
SECTION 169 Cr.P.C.
- Investigation Officer who had arrested respondents had been requesting Magistrate for
authorization of detention of said accused persons through remand---After getting
permission/authorization as envisaged under S.167, Cr.P.C., Investigating Officer could not
discharge said accused for all times to come---Investigating Officer could release accused after their
executing a bond with or without sureties, but could not discharge them, who earlier were detained
with Investigating Officer by the permission of Magistrate---Words of S.169, Cr.P.C. “release him on
his executing a bond with or without sureties” could not be expounded as having authorized or
empowered Investigating Officer to discharge accused---From wording of subsection (3) of S.173,
Cr.P.C., it became evident that accused released on bond, with or without sureties, was not a person
released for all times to come, in fact, it was a temporary release, which had to be confirmed through
an order of discharge from the Magistrate---Release of an accused under S.169, Cr.P.C. was uptil
confirmation of the action of Investigating Officer for the release of accused and uptil discharge or
order of Magistrate as provided in S.173, Cr.P.C.
Abdul Wahid Versus State
2007 P L D 65
Lahore High Court, Lahore
SECTION 169 Cr.P.C.
- Report of Police Officer/Investigating Officer discharging respondents under S.169, Cr.P.C., was
concurred by the Trial Court---Appellant, thereafter, filed private complaint under Ss.302 & 34 P.P.C.
against discharged respondents before the Trial Court after about one year of order of the Trial
Court---Trial Court issued process against respondents, which process was challenged before
Shariat Court which culminated into the impugned order---Validity---Appellant did not, challenge the
order confirming discharge of accused/respondents earlier passed by the Trial Court, but instead
filed private complaint after, about one year---Belated private complaint was not favoured by the
Supreme Court, more so, when the order by police under S.169, Cr.P.C. was confirmed by same
Court, which had tried other accused who were part of the case in which respondents were
discharged--- In absence of any fault in the order passed by Shariat Court, appeal against said
order, was dismissed.
Muhammad Basharat Versus Khadim Hussain
2006 P Cr. L J 1253
Supreme Court, Azad Kashmir
SECTION 169 Cr.P.C.
- If Magistrates were given the powers to discharge and release an accused at the very initial
stage, there would be no room for success in blind heinous criminal cases which were always
investigated on different theories of probabilities based on spy information---Once an accused was
apprehended and found innocent, he could be set free during investigation by obtaining discharge
order from the Court---discharge of an accused was also governed by S.169, Cr.P.C. which was at
the conclusion of investigation and on submission of report under S.173, Cr.P.C.
State Versus Ubaidullah
2005 M L D 1883
Peshawar High Court, NWFP
- Words of S. 169, Cr.P.C. “release him on his executing a bond with or without sureties” could not
be expounded as having authorized or empowered Investigating Officer to discharge accused.
Abdul Wahid Versus State
2007 PLD 65
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
SECTION 167 & 169 Cr.P.C.
- Refusal to grant remand and discharge of accused from the F.I.R.---If the Magistrate had no
jurisdiction to try accused produced before him for remand, he could authorize the detention, but if
he considered the detention unnecessary, he could order the accused to be forwarded to a
Magistrate having such jurisdiction--- Impugned order whereby remand was refused and accused
was discharged from F.I.R., was passed by Duty Magistrate on Sunday---Said Magistrate did not
have the jurisdiction to try the accused--- If said Magistrate thought that further detention was
unnecessary, he could have forwarded the accused to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try him---
Impugned order had been passed by the Magistrate without jurisdiction and same was void ab initio-
--Magistrate being not competent to pass order of discharge of accused while exercising powers
under S.167, Cr.P.C., High Court accepted Constitutional petition set aside order being illegal,
unjustified and untenable.
Abid Hussain Versus Ikram-ul-Haq Chaudhry
2005 P Cr. L J 1403
Lahore High Court, Lahore
SECTION 169 Cr.P.C.
- Discharge of accused---discharge of an accused under S.169, Cr.P.C. was an administrative act
of Magistrate and it would not amount to an acquittal of accused---Order of discharge could be
recalled by the Magistrate subsequently and accused could also be summoned by Trial Court to face
the trial.
Malik Hamid Saeed Versus The State
2004 P Cr L J 117
Peshawar High Court, NWFP
SECTION 169 Cr.P.C.
- Discharge of accused---Police having found the accused innocent, requested Judicial Magistrate
to discharge the accused, request of the police was turned down by the Magistrate, on the ground of
lack of jurisdiction as the case was triable by the Sessions Court---Validity---discharge of the
accused from the case did not amount to his acquittal.
Jamil Asghar Bhatti Versus The State
2001 M L D 1578
Lahore High Court, Lahore
SECTION 169 Cr.P.C.
- Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.)----Ss.169 & 173---discharge of accused after submission of
challan in the Court---Once the challan is submitted in the Court under S.173, Cr.P.C., the provisions
of S.169, Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked.
Syed Sikandar Shah
Versus
Inspector General Police, NWFP, Peshawar
2000 P Cr L J 25
Peshawar High Court, NWFP
SECTION 169 Cr.P.C.
- Investigating Officer has discretionary power under S.169, Cr.P.C. to release accused on bail
bond during course of investigation before submission of challan---Such interim relief has been
made permissible under law to innocent person who would have to stand the test of judicial scrutiny
to be made by Trial Court at a proper stage---Right course to be adopted by Investigating Officer is
that at the conclusion of investigation he should place name of accused discharged under S.169,
Cr.P.C. in column No.2 of challan with his own remarks---Court has to form its own opinion on basis
of material on record---Resort to provisions of S.169, Cr.P.C., by Investigating Officer during
investigation or re-investigation deprecated---Serious notice should be taken by superior Police
Officers including Superintendent of Police and Deputy Inspector General concerned in the interest
of justice by having a strict observance over investigation so that said discretionary powers of
Investigating Officer were not misused in any way nor exercised blindly without any valid and legal
base---Police, before submission of challan, can resort to S.169, Cr.P.C. at preliminary stage of
investigation---Trial Court should not interfere at such a stage as that would be premature.
Mastan Shah
Versus
Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Bannu.
1999 P Cr L J 469
Peshawar High Court, NWFP
SECTION 173 & 190 CR.P.C.
- 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.
Syed Muhammad Ahmed Versus State
2006 PLD 316
Supreme-Court
- Contention of applicants was that Magistrate could not deal with any police report under S. 173 or
S. 174, Cr.P.C. either accepting or refusing same in a Sessions case.
- Further contention of applicants was that such report was to be forwarded to concerned Sessions
Judge for disposal according to law.
- Submission of respondents on the other hand was that wording of S.190(2), Cr.P.C. had made it
very clear that Magistrate was fully empowered to deal with police reports and thereafter either
accept or reject them.
- Magistrate should send case to the Sessions court if it was a Sessions case upon acceptance of
police report and again discharge accused if he did not agree with the same---Exercise to be
conducted by the Magistrate under S. 190, Cr.P.C., was not a judicial one and he could not
determine the guilt or innocence of accused, but only had to assess evidence on record in a
summary fashion and thereafter make up his mind whether or not to discharge accused.
Hakim Ali, SIP Versus State
2006 PLD 302
Karachi-High-Court-Sindh
SECTION 173 CR.P.C
Magistrate concurring with Police Report submitted under S.173, Cr.P.C. discharging accused and
cancelling a criminal case registered under S.379/420, P.P.C does not function as criminal Court—
Order of cancellation of criminal case for that reason is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction of
High Court under Ss.435 to 439, Cr.P.C.—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 379 & 420 –Criminal
Procedure Code (V of 1898).
Under the Criminal Procedure Code a Magistrate is entrusted with diverse duties and in discharging
the same does not always function as a Court, conduct judicial proceedings or is amenable to the
revisional jurisdiction. Some of his powers and duties under the Code are administrative, executive
or ministerial and he discharges these duties not as a Court but a persona designata. Mere name or
designation of a Magistrate is not decisive of the question because “Judges often administer and
administrators often Judge.”
A Magistrate, even while concurring in cancellation of a case is required to judicially examine the
report submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C. and this has led to the impression that he must while
doing so be acting and functioning as a Court. This obviously is a mistaken impression.
The primary characteristics of ‘pure’ judicial functions, by whomsoever exercised, are:-
(1) The power to hear and determine a controversy.
(2) The power to make a binding decision (sometimes subject to appeal) which may affect the
person or property or other rights of the parties involved in the dispute.
Administrative functions, on the other hand, consist of those activities which are directed towards the
regulation and supervision of public affairs and the initiation and maintenance of the Public services.
Though a Magistrate in cancelling a registered criminal case is required to act judicially in that he
has to act fairly, justly and honestly, a duty common to the exercise of all state powers:
(i) There is no lis before him
(ii) There is no duty to hear the parties
(iii) There is no decision given
(iv) No finality or irrevocability attaching to the order
(v) And the same Magistrate does not even after passing such an order render himself functus
officio.
On the contrary he is quite competent to entertain and deal with such a complaint on material
presented to him. These peculiarities establish beyond any doubt that in so concurring with a report
submitted under section 173, Cr.P.C. he does not function as a criminal court. For that reason his
order is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction under sections 435 to 439, Cr.P.C. This appeal is,
therefore, allowed, and the impugned order of the High Court is set-aside, as one without
jurisdiction.
- Judicial Officer (Magistrate) had not independently acted and had failed to exercise his discretion
in a lawful manner---Observation of Judicial Officer while disposing of a case, must be self-
explanatory, it must contain reasons justifying his conclusion---Disposal of case in slipshod manner,
simply stating that he had gone through the entire record and found that no such incident had
happened, was not sufficient; he must give cogent reason after discussing material brought before
him and the circumstances which came to his knowledge during course of trial to reach such
conclusion---No doubt order of cancellation of F.I.R. under S.173, Cr.P.C., was administrative order,
but even then while exercising his jurisdiction under said section, concerned Judicial Officer was
required to express himself giving impression that while doing so he was performing function as a
court.
Muhammad Daiem Shattari Versus State
2007 YLR 2038
Karachi -High-Court-Sindh
- Investigating Officer during the course of investigation disbelieved the version of complainant and
disposed of the case in B-class, but proceedings were initiated on the basis of the challan submitted
on the direction of Magistrate, which was the abuse of the process of Court---Impugned order being
beyond the scope of S.173, Cr.P.C., was set aside and further proceedings on the basis of said
challan were also quashed.
Peer Ghulam Dastagir Versus State
2007 YLR 930
Karachi -High-Court-Sindh
- Challan of case, though was completed and signed after four days of occurrence, but was not put
in Court---Mere signing of complete Challan Form was not observance of provisions of S. 173,
Cr.P.C. as regarded submission of interim or complete challan.
Israruddin Versus State
2006 MLD 143
Peshawar-High-Court-NWFP
- Opinion of police and medical report---Evidentiary value---Petitioner had contended that he was
found innocent by Investigating Agency and that per the post-mortem examination report,
deceased/daughter of complainant met natural death suddenly and that she was not subjected to
any violence by the petitioner.
- That Magistrate, while passing impugned order, neither had applied mind consciously nor
properly appreciated discharge report which fully supported the case of petitioner; and that no useful
purpose would be served by directing police for submission of challan as despite hectic efforts
Investigating Agency had failed to collect evidence connecting petitioner with commission of alleged
murder of deceased---Validity---Police opinion was not binding on the Court and medical repot could
also not be considered as conclusive piece of evidence without recording as well as other
prosecution evidence---Since prosecution witnesses in their statements under S. 161, Cr.P.C. had
involved petitioner and medical evidence was also yet to be scanned after recording statement of
doctor who conducted post-mortem examination of deceased, it could not, in circumstances, be held
that Magistrate, while passing impugned order, had committed any illegality or irregularity by
disagreeing with the discharge report and directing Police to submit challan in terms of S. 173,
Cr.P.C, even otherwise, High Court, while sitting in constitutional jurisdiction, seldom interfered in
such-like cases.
Nazar Hussain Versus State
2006 YLR 631
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.
- If the Trial Court was satisfied that sufficient material was on record to proceed against,
petitioner, trial court, after taking cognizance of the matter upon the report already submitted by
Agency, could summon petitioner to face trial.
- Impugned order to the extent of direction to the Authority for submission of supplementary report
against petitioner, was set aside, with that modification in the impugned order, constitutional petition
was disposed of.
Gahna Khan Versus State
2006 MLD 1492
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
- If the Investigating Officer was found not to have properly investigated the matter and to have
submitted the report under the influence of accused, Magistrate could disagree with the same, but
his such order of disagreement should have reflected reasons therefore.
- Impugned order passed by the Magistrate whereby he had called the parties, accused,
complainant and his witnesses, amounted to taking cognizance of the mater without assigning any
reason for disagreeing with the report of the Investigating officer.
Dawood Khan Versus Ahsan-Ur-Rehman
2006 MLD 663
Karachi-High-Court-Sindh
SECTION 173 & 344 CR.P.C.
- Accused was in jail for the last over eight months---Not a single witness had so far been
examined.
- Formalities of SS. 173 and 344, Cr.P.C. had not been complied with and challan against the
accused had not been submitted within the stipulated period, resulting in grave miscarriage of
justice---Material on file did not make out any offence against the accused.
- Charge having been framed by Trial Court was no bar in the way of quashment of proceedings.
- F.I.Rs were quashed.
Muhammad Aslam (Amir Aslam)
Versus
District Police Officer, Rawalpindi
2009 SCMR 141
Supreme-Court
SECTIONS 179 & 182
- Ss. 179 & 182---Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961), S.6(5)---Constitution of Pakistan
(1973), Art. 185(3)---Territorial Jurisdiction---Leave to Appeal---High Court’s judgment that the Court
at Lahore had the jurisdiction to try the complaint having been based on S.179, Cr.P.C. was
unexceptionable---Both the Courts at Hyderabad and Lahore having jurisdiction to try the matter in
view of S.182, Cr.P.C. leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. [P.1902]
Basharat Iqbal Versus The State and another
1993 SCMR 1901
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, C J. And Muhammad Azal Lone, J
SECTION 188 CR.P.C.
- Extra-territorial jurisdiction---expression “found”, as used in S.188,Cr.P.C---Connotation---
Quashing of proceedings---Offence was committed in a foreign country and private complaint was
filed in criminal court in Pakistan, in which Trial Court issued process against the accused who was a
resident of foreign country---Accused raised the plea that after commission of offence, he never
arrived/brought in Pakistan, therefore, Trial Court had no jurisdiction in the matter---Validity---
Expression “found” used in S. 188, Cr.P.C. meant that a person was physically and actually present
at any place in Pakistan or had voluntarily appeared before a Court in Pakistan or appeared in
answer to the summons or he was brought before the Court under arrest---Presence of accused
anywhere in Pakistan and procurement of his attendance before trial court in Pakistan had not been
shown, therefore, Courts in Pakistan taking cognizance of the offence under S. 190(1), Cr.P.C. upon
receiving a complaint had no jurisdiction to deal with the accused---High Court in exercise of
revisional jurisdiction quashed the proceedings against the accused being without jurisdiction---
Revision was allowed accordingly.
Sultan Riaz Khan Versus The State and another
PLD 2007 Karachi 91
Before Muhammad Mujeebullah Siddiqui, J
SECTIONS 190, 193 & 202 CR.P.C.
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-
- Sc. 193 (1), 190 (3) & 202 (1) – Private complaint-Court of session has no original jurisdiction to
try a criminal case-Private complaint is to be filed with Magistrate who sends same to Court of
Session under S. 190 (3), Cr.P.C. if Magistrate find that same was to be exclusively triable by a
Court of Session-Sessions Judge, thereafter only may reject complaint or summon accused and
proceed with trial.-[Complaint]. [P.1374]A
Plaint, filing of - Procedure for trial illustrated.-[Complaint].
- A private complaint was filed under sections 6, 11 and 16 of Offence of Zina (Enforcement of
Hudood) Ordinance VII of 1979 in the Court of the Sessions Judge which was entrusted to the
Additional Sessions Judge who forwarded it to the Magistrate, for inquiry under section 202, Cr.P.C.
The Additional Sessions Judge had recorded statement of the complainant as required by the
proviso to section 202 (1), Cr.P.C. The Magistrate after holding inquiry sent his report and the
complaint to the Additional Sessions Judge, who summoned the petitioners as accused. Petitioners
filed application under section 265-K, Cr.P.C. for quashment of proceedings and acquittal of the
petitioners which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, who held that it had jurisdiction in
the matter. Petitioners have challenged both the aforementioned orders under section 561-A.
- Held, the Private complaint should have been returned by the Sessions Judge and the
complainant should have presented it to the Magistrate concerned who after taking cognizance
under section 190(1), Cr.P.C. should have sent it to the Sessions Judge for trial. According to the
procedure all complaints have to be filed before the Magistrate who takes cognizance under section
190 (1), Cr.P.C.
Muhammad Saeed And Others
Versus
The State And Others
1984 P Cr. L J 1373 [Lahore]
Before Kamal Mustafa Bokhari, J
SECTION 190 CR.P.C.
- 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.
Manzoor Akbar Turk
Versus
Raja Ashiq Hussain
2008 MLD 728
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
- Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C)---Ss. 561-A & 435-Inherent powers of High Court, exercise of-
--Provisions of S.561-A, Cr.P.C. cannot be pressed into service to agitate against concurrent
findings of two competent courts below arrived at after appraisal of evidence.
Shah Jahan Alamgir Shahanshah, Advocate
Versus
Muhammad Sharif
1989 PCRLJ 374
Karachi-High-Court-Sindh
SECTIONS 561-A & 397 CR.P.C.
- Ss.561-A & 397---inherent jurisdiction of High court---According to the specific provisions of
S.397, Cr.P.C. it is the prerogative of the Trial Court or the Appellate Court to pass a direction for the
sentences to run concurrently or not---High Court, therefore, cannot pass such a direction on a
petition filed under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C.
Gulzar Ahmad
Versus
Superintendent District Jail, Faisalabad
2009 MLD 1068
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
SECTION 561-A CR.P.C.
- S.561-A---Constitutional jurisdiction and inherent powers of High Court---Scope---High Court, in
exercise of constitutional jurisdiction and inherent powers, was supposed to take effective steps to
safeguard legal rights of the people and the system.
Lal Khan
Versus
Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Jhang.
2010 P Cr. L J 182
Lahore High Court, Lahore
PLEA OF ALIBI
- When accused admits that he was not present at the place of occurrence by taking the plea of
alibi then he cannot claim right of private defence, as it is self destructive---Plea of right of private
defence can be taken by a person who admits the act charged against him but pleads an excuse---If
a person states that he did not do the act at all, it is difficult to see how at the same time the question
of right of private defence would arise---Such fact by itself is sufficient to discard the plea of right of
private defence.
Mushtaq Hussain Versus State
2011 SCMR 45
Supreme Court
- Qatl-e-Amd and attempt to commit Qatl-e-Amd---Bail, refusal of---Alleged plea of alibi of accused
was a question to be determined by the Trial Court---Such plea of alibi was required to be proved
through exhaustive, cogent and reliable evidence; and not merely on the basis of statements of few
persons recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. by the Police---On the basis of available record, accused
was reasonably connected with the commission of the offence, which carried a capital punishment
and fell under the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.---Bail was refused.
Sami Ullah Versus Mst. Kalsoom Bibi
2011 P Cr. L J 550
Peshawar High Court, NWFP
Qatl-e-Amd and attempt to commit Qatl-e-Amd---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Four accused
were male members of the same family, wherein one was stated to be present in the Military Unit on
the date of occurrence; and he had been placed in column No.2 of the challan---Accused though
were charged for an offence carrying capital punishment falling under the restrictive part of sub-
section (I) of S.497, Cr.P.C., but the court had to make a tentative assessment of the prosecution
case; and the plea of defence at bail stage for arriving at a conclusion as to whether reasonable
grounds existed to hold that accused were reasonably connected with commission of offence---Plea
of alibi raised by one of accused persons was found correct and his name was placed in column
No.2 of the challan, which made the case of accused one the case of further inquiry---Accused were
allowed bail, in circumstances.
Naimat Ullah Versus State
2011 MLD 935
Peshawar High Court, NWFP.
- Presence of accused with the deceased at the place of occurrence was established---Accused
tried to destroy the evidence of the case by raising false plea of alibi through concocted and
tampered entry in the register of the Hotel wherein he claimed to have stayed on the date of
occurrence---Conduct of the accused remained dubious; instead of registering the F.I.R., he fled the
scene and tried to create false story of alibi which suggested his involvement in the case.
Sarmad Mehmood Ahmad Versus State
2011 YLR 439
Lahore High Court, Lahore
- Truth or otherwise of the plea of alibi taken by accused would be considered and decided by the
Trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties.
Naeem Shamshed Versus State
2011 YLR 833
Karachi High Court, Sindh.
- Statement of alleged victim made under S.164, Cr.P.C., was not in consonance with the
statement of complainant---Record prima facie showed that the victim girl was expelled from the
school due to her absence---Even enrolment of one of accused, was also cancelled in the school---
No independent eye-witnesses were available as to the attendance of said accused or the victim in
school on the day when victim was allegedly forcibly taken by accused---No specific role had been
assigned to accused who on the date of occurrence had appeared in ward test at the university---
Truth or otherwise of the plea of alibi taken by accused persons would be considered and decided
by the Trial Court after recording of evidence.
Miss. Nayab Versus State
2011 YLR 789
Karachi High Court, Sindh
- S.497---Question of joint firing in the wake of alibi in favour of co-accused was of no help to the
accused at bail stage as the same would be decided at trial.
Shahbaz Versus State
2011 P. Cr. L. J 338
Karachi High Court, Sindh.
- None of the grounds valid for grant of bail in a case falling under the prohibitory clause of S.497,
Cr.P.C., was available to accused---Accused had not raised the plea of alibi at the time of moving his
bail before arrest application, meaning thereby that he had no such defence at that time---Even
otherwise, accused had relied upon the evidence of a large number of witnesses in support of his
plea of alibi, which could not be evaluated at present stage and would be assessed at the trial---
Impugned order of High Court did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity---Bail was declined to
accused and leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Shoukat Ilahi Versus Javed Iqbal
2010 SCMR 966
Supreme Court
- Trial Court had believed the defence evidence in respect of plea of alibi taken by co-accused,
who produced five witnesses in support of his plea---According to said co-accused on the day of
occurrence he was arrested by the Police and a case was registered against him---Since said
acquitted co-accused was serving in Irrigation Department, Investigating Officer also got verified his
departure on the fateful day from the office by procuring the attendance register of co-accused, who
was shown absent---Trial Court had believed the defence evidence and statement of accused
recorded under S.340(2), Cr.P.C. on the ground that nothing had been brought out in cross-
examination to make that evidence unreliable---Trial Court also taken into consideration the opinion
of Forensic Science Laboratory---Evidence against acquitted accused was not sufficient for his
involvement in the offence---When an accused was acquitted of the charges, he enjoyed double
presumption of innocence in his favour and the Appellate Court was required to be careful while
considering appeal against acquittal---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed.
Roman Ali Versus State
2010 YLR 1531
Peshawar High Court, NWFP
- Plea of alibi raised by accused person could not be considered at the bail stage because the
investigation of the case was in progress and the authenticity of the same could well be ascertained
by the Trial Court.
Sher Zada Versus Roshan Zari
2010 YLR 1464
Peshawar High Court, NWFP
- Submissions of counsel for accused like plea of alibi and contradiction in the medical and other
evidence, were related to the trial and deeply touched the merits of the case which could not be
taken into consideration at bail stage, because it would amount to deep appreciation of evidence
which was not permissible under the law.
Nawab Khan Versus State
2010 P. Cr. L. J 1463
Peshawar High Court, NWFP