Code of Criminal Procedure Sections Explained

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
SECTIONS 2, 177, 179 & 180 CR.P.C.

- Trial Court directed to file complaint against applicant for offences under Ss.174, 175 & 228,
P.P.C. before Court of competent jurisdiction---Complaint filed against applicant was forwarded to
Judicial Magistrate who took cognizance of the case---Only “Executive Magistrate” under Ss. 28 &
29, Cr.P.C. could try offences registered under Ss.174, 175 & 228, P.P.C----Cognizance of case or
cases in circumstances, could not be taken by ‘Judicial Magistrate’---Offence against applicant
having actually taken place within territorial limits of the concerned District, Magistrate of the
District would have jurisdiction to try case against accused and not Magistrate of other District
Courts---Judicial Magistrate on both counts was not competent to take cognizance of the case---
Proceedings before Judicial Magistrate amounting to abuse of process of Court, were quashed, in
circumstances.
Muhammad Ahmed Baig Versus The State
2003 MLD 1 [Karachi]
Before Wahid Bux Brohi, J
- Same transaction.
- The real and substantial test for determination whether several offences were so connected
together as to form one transaction, depends upon whether they are related together in point of
purpose, or as cause and effect or as principal and subsidiary acts so as to constitute one
continuous action.
Sheikh Muhammad Aslam and another
Versus
The State and 2 Others
1991 MLD 1973 [Lahore]
Before Sh. Muhammad Zubair, J
PLD 1958 SC (Pak.) 131 and PLD 1967 Pesh. 32 ref
- Case was registered against accused under S.377/511 P.P.C. and under S.12 of the Offence of
Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979) and accused was sent up for trial for the
same offence---Charge against accused was framed by Trial Court (Sessions Court) only under S.
377, P.P.C. to which accused pleaded not guilty and case proceeded and evidence was recorded---
Accused finally was convicted and sentenced under S. 377, P.P.C. who filed appeal against that
judgment before Federal Shariat Court---Appeal before Federal Shariat Court, held, was not
competent as neither the charge had been framed under S.12 of Ordinance VII of 1979 nor any
evidence had come on record for kidnapping and abduction of the victim in order to enable Federal
Shariat Court to exercise jurisdiction.
- S. 20---Federal Shariat Court has jurisdiction when any of the accused is charged under the
provisions of Ordinance (VII of 1979) and any other law.
Muzammil Shah Versus The State
1990 P Cr. L J 1682
[Federal Shariat court]
Before Abdul Karim Khan Kundi And Abdul Razzaq A. Thahim, JJ
- 28. It may be necessary to mention here that under the present dispensation under the Code
there are two kinds of Magistrates, i.e. Judicial Magistrates and Executive Magistrates and both
have their respective jurisdictions vis-à-vis competence to take cognizance of specified offences. It
has already been mentioned above that the power of a Magistrate to discharge an accused person
under the Code is relatable to his competence to take cognizance of an offence. Thus, an Executive
Magistrate having no jurisdiction to take cognizance of a particular offence is not competent to
discharge an accused person involved in such an offence and, likewise a Judicial Magistrate having
not been conferred jurisdiction to take cognizance of a particular offence is not empowered to
discharge an accused person involved in such an offence. An order of discharge passed by an
incompetent Magistrate is, therefore, an order passed without lawful authority and the same is of no
legal effect. A reference may be made in this respect to the cases of Sufi Abdul Qadir v. The state
and others 2000 P Cr. LJ 520 and Ghulam Shabbir v. State 2000 P Cr. LJ 141.
Ashiq Hussain Versus Sessions Judge, Lodhran and 3 Others.
PLD 2001 Lahore 271
Before Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J
- No case under S.420.P.P.C. was made out from bare reading of complaint and the transaction, if
any, was of a civil nature and accusation under S.420, P.P.C appeared to be mala fide---As regards
offences under Ss.504 & 506, P.P.C Magistrate had no territorial jurisdiction to take their cognizance
against accused and the same even otherwise had no nexus with the offence under S.420, P.P.C.
and could not be tried together---Process issued by Court against accused was thus illegal and
without jurisdiction---Proceedings pending against accused in the Court of Magistrate were ordered
to be quashed in circumstances.
Mehboob Ahmed Versus The State and 5 others
1991 P Cr. L J 792 [Karachi]
Before Allah Dino G. Memon, J
- 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
2007 PLD 243
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
- 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
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
2007 PLD 243
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
SECTION 63 & 173 CR.P.C

SS. 63 & 173 Cr.P.C-----Sometimes either through misunderstanding of law or through lack of proper
application of mind by those concerned a simple concept of law or practice assumes a meaning
which is neither contemplated by the relevant law itself nor the same fits into the normal scheme of
things. One such example is the law relating to ‘discharge’ of an accused person in a criminal case.
It is unfortunate that of late a lot of confusion has been created bout the true meaning and scope of
discharge of an accused person in a criminal case. Lately an understanding is gaining ground that
discharge of an accused person in a criminal case means that further investigation qua him or his
prosecution for the reported crime has come to an end, he has finally been absolved of the
allegations with his discharge virtually having the effect of an acquittal and, because of such
a consequence of an order of discharge, such a discharge can be ordered only by the court
competent to try the offence in question and not by a Magistrate if he otherwise lacks jurisdiction to
try the relevant offence. All these views have in fact been expressed before me in the present case
by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Unfortunately all such notions and impressions about
discharge are misplaced and misconceived. Therefore, through the present judgment I propose to
restate the legal position in this regard.
29. For facility of cognition and reference the above discussion is summed up with the following
resume and conclusions:
(i) The concept of discharge is relatable only to custody of an accused person in a criminal case
and it has no relevance to anything else during an investigation or a trial.
(ii) The Investigating Officer of a criminal case may discharge an accused person under section 63
of the Code of Criminal Procedure and release him from custody during the investigation on
executing a personal bond regarding his appearance before the Investigating Officer or a Magistrate
whenever required to do so during the investigation. Likewise under the same provision of law an
accused person may be discharged from custody during the investigation either on bail or under the
special order of a Magistrate.
(iii) Upon receipt of the police report under subsection (3) of section 173 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure a magistrate may discharge an accused person of his bond if such an accused person
has already been released upon executing a bond.
(iv) There is a difference between discharge of an accused person by an Investigating Officer on a
bond or on bail or under the special order of a Magistrate under section 63 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure and discharge of such an accused person of his bond by a Magistrate under subsection
(3) of section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as in the former case the accused person is
released on the condition of executing a bond whereas in the latter case he is released of his bond
making his release unconditional and unfettered for the time being.
(v) Discharge of an accused person does not amount to smothering of the investigation qua him,
cancellation of the case against him, termination of his prosecution or his acquittal.
(vi) A discharged accused person can always be associated by the police with the investigation of
the given criminal case at any subsequent stage during the investigation without obtaining any
permission from the Magistrate discharging the said accused person as long as that accused person
is not to be taken into custody during such subsequent investigation.
(vii) If after his having been discharged by a Magistrate the police needs to arrest an accused
person during any subsequent state of the investigation then a formal permission from the
Magistrate is necessary for the purpose.
(viii) Discharge of an accused person has nothing to do with the prospects of such an
accused person ultimately facing a trial or not as his discharge is not from the case but only
on or of his bond.
Whether an accused person had been discharged or not and whether the police had opined about
his guilt or not in its report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are factors which
are irrelevant to the issues whether cognizance of the offence is to be taken or not and whether such
an accused person is to be summoned or not to face a trial because such decisions are to be made
by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence and the Trial Court on the basis of the material
collected during the investigation and the attending circumstances of the case and not on the basis
of any opinion formed by the police o the basis of such material.
Discharge of an accused person by a Magistrate is not possible after taking of cognizance of the
case by the Trial Court.
(xi) An order regarding discharge or otherwise of an accused person lies within the competence of
a Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and it has not relevance to the
question as to which Court is to ultimately try the offence in question unless a special statute
provides otherwise specifically.
An order regarding discharge of an accused person is an administrative and not a judicial order.
(xiii) An order regarding discharge is essentially a discretionary order which may not ordinarily be
interfered with by a higher forum unless strong and compelling reasons exist for such interference.
30. For what has been discussed above I have failed to find any merit in the present petition which
is hereby dismissed.
Ashiq Hussain Versus Sessions judge, Lodhran
PLD 2001 Lahore 271
Before Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, J
SECTION 173 CR.P.C.
- Even after the completion of the investigation and submission of a report under S.173 Cr.P.C.
petitioner, would have another remedy before the Trial Court for redressal of his grievance --- Fate of
a criminal case depended upon the contents of F.I.R. and the prosecution evidence, and not on
provisions of offence, under which the F.I.R. was registered by the Police; as the courts were not
bound by the ipse dixit of Police.
Muhammad Ramzan Versus Station House Officer
2011 PLD 175
LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
- Conduct and manner of investigation was not normally to be scrutinized by the High Court in its
constitutional jurisdiction which would amount to interference in the Police investigation---
Constitutional petition was dismissed.
Javed Iqbal Versus S.H.O
2011 P Cr. L J 447
- 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.
Syed Faraz Shah Versus State
2011 MLD 535
- S.173---Magistrate disagreeing with the police report recommending/suggesting/seeking disposal
of F.I.R. in class, directed police to submit the charge sheet against the accused persons---
Applicant/accused contended that the Magistrate could not order the challan to be submitted---
Validity---Magistrate dealing with the report under S.173, Cr.P.C. though acted in administrative
capacity, yet he had to pass a speaking order---Court below had observed the cases of both the
complainant and the accused were supported by their witnesses---Veracity of witnesses could be
determined by the Trial Court only after recording evidence---Magistrate had given reasonable and
plausible explanation for disagreeing with the police report and rightly ordered the challan to be filed
in prescribed proforma in the court competent to try the offence---Where Magistrate arrived at a
conclusion contrary to the police report which sought disposal or cancellation of F.I.R. as ‘B’ or ‘C’
class, he had to make an order for submission of challan in prescribed form---Accused’s application
was dismissed in circumstances.
Sabir Ali Arian Versus State
2011 P Cr. L J 732
KARACHI HIGH COURT, SINDH
- Proceedings under S.173, Cr.P.C. are of administrative nature and can be challenged before
High Court by invoking inherent jurisdiction of High Court under S.561-A, Cr.P.C.
Fida Hussain
Versus
Government of Singh through Home Secretary
2011 MLD 766.
- Second F.I.R. in respect of the same offence---Judicial Magistrate refused to accept the
Investigating Officer’s 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.
Syed Wahid Bux Shah alias Chacho Shah
Versus
State
2011 MLD 64
- 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.
Noor Muhammad Khan
Versus
State
2010 YLR 2249
PESHAWAR HIGH COURT-NWFP
- Report under S.173, Cr.P.C was not signed by the S.H.O concerned, which was a violation of the
mandatory provisions of the Police Rules---Investigating Officer prima facie, being in league with the
accused had declared him innocent in a clandestine manner---S.S.P. (Investigation) in such,
circumstances had entrusted the investigation to S.P. Headquarters, on the application moved by
the complainant for transfer of the same---Challan already submitted by the S.H.O against law and
without collecting any evidence could not be made a basis for stopping re-investigation in the case,
which was necessary in the given circumstances---Magistrate was restrained from passing any order
on the application of the accused presented under S. 249-A, Cr. P.C. for acquittal, till the matter was
reinvestigated and fresh final report under S. 173, Cr. P.C was submitted in the Court---Final verdict
had to be passed by the Court after evaluating the evidence adduced before it during the trial---
Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.
Mian Muhammad Asif Versus S.S.P. Operation, Lahore
2010 YLR 944
- Police report under S. 173, Cr.P.C., showed that police during investigation, found accused
persons to be innocent and their names were placed in column No.2---Report of the Police though
was not binding upon the court, but it was a relevant circumstance to be taken into consideration
while determining such like question.
Jahangir Versus State
2010 PCrLJ 769
- S.173---Report of Police Officer---Scope---Challan was not the substitution of report under S.173,
Cr.P.C challan could only be submitted when Investigating Agency would come to the conclusion
that accused was found guilty and recommended to be tried under the relevant offence, whereas if
accused was not recommended to be tried in the case, then the report under S.173,Cr.P.C was to
be submitted without any challan---No power vested with any court including High Court to override
the legal command and to direct S. H.O., either not to submit investigation report (challan) or to
submit the report in a particular manner i.e. against only such persons as the court desired or only
with respect to such offences as the court wished.
Muhammad Farooq Qureshi
Versus
Judicial Magistrate Section 30
2010 P Cr L J 261
- Police prepared a cancellation report and placed it before the Magistrate who disagreed with said
report and ordered to complete challan under S. 173, Cr.P.C. and to produce before the court---
Validity---Investigation of a criminal case and the resultant arrival by the Police at a conclusion
regarding the guilt or innocence of accused lay within the domain and prerogative of the Police over
which no other authority had any control---Magistrate while disagreeing with the discharge report
had travelled beyond the jurisdiction in directing the Police to submit the challan against accused---
Muhammad Farooq Qureshi
Versus
Judicial Magistrate Section 30
2010 P Cr L J 261
- In case the Investigator would fail to collect sufficient evidence in support of the
charge/allegation, he was required to prepare negative final report under S.173 read with S. 169,
Cr.P.C., and to lay it before the Area Magistrate and it was prerogative of the Area Magistrate to
agree or disagree with the Police investigation---Under S. 190(1)(b), Cr.P.C. the Trial Court would
take cognizance of the offence and not of the offender---If the Trial Magistrate would find that
sufficient evidence was available against accused, he was competent to take cognizance of the
offence on submission of negative/cancellation report---Contrary to that if the evidence in support of
the charge was sufficient, the Investigator would submit final report under S.173 read with S.170
Cr.P.C. before the court---
- After submission of challan in the court, the prosecutor was required to prosecute cause of the
State by producing material falling within the definition of “legal evidence”--- Function of the Trial
Court was to form an opinion after perusing the Police report, all the documents and statements filed
by the prosecution as to whether or not sufficient grounds were available to proceed with the trial of
the challaned accused in order to determine the question of his guilt or innocence---Section 265-D,
Cr.P.C. governing the subject had laid down that if sufficient ground was available to proceed with
the trial, the court would frame a charge against accused; on the other hand, if some material would
not exist to connect the challaned accused with the alleged crime; and the Trial Court considered
that probability of accused being convicted of any offence or the charge was groundless, accused
would be acquitted at any stage of the case under S.265-K or 249-A, Cr.P.C.
Lal Khan
Versus
Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali Jhang
2010 P Cr L J 182
- Direction of Court to police to submit challan under a specified section---Jurisdiction---Scope---
Anti-Terrorism Court had directed the Investigating Officer to submit challan under S.365-A, PPC in
the court---Validity---Special Court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, had traveled beyond
its jurisdiction while directing the Investigating Officer to submit challan in the court under S.365-A
PPC, which was the sole job of the Investigating Agency to submit a report under S.173,
Cr.P.C. before the Court of competent jurisdiction---Even S.19 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, did
not empower to the Trial Court to issue such type of direction to the police---Impugned order was not
sustainable in law and the same was consequently set-aside---Constitutional petition was accepted
accordingly.
- Submission of final report of investigation by police in Court---Court not vested with the power to
direct police to submit challan under a specified provision of law---Mandate of law---Section 173,
Cr.P.C. is the only provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure enabling the concerned S.H.O. to
submit a report of the result of every investigation in the prescribed manner in the Court---No Court
including the High Court has the power to override the said legal command and to direct the S.H.O.
either not to submit the said report i.e., the challan or to submit the same in a particular manner
either against only such persons as the Court desires or only under such offences as the Court
wishes.
Ch. Khalid Mushtaq Versus Special Judge (Admn.)
2010 PLD 114
- Filing of final report by Investigation Officer for cancelling case under “C” class---Disagreement of
Magistrate with such report due to availability of sufficient evidence on record to connect accused
with offence, thus, directed Investigating Officer to submit report accordingly---Validity---After filing of
such report, Magistrate had option either to agree or disagree with the same, but in case of
disagreement, he could order further investigation of case by police, and in case when no
investigation required to be conducted, then he could take cognizance of offence in terms of S.190,
Cr.P.C. Magistrate had no power or authority to direct Police Investigating Officer to file another
report under S.173, Cr.P.C., from the one disagreed by him---High Court set aside impugned order
and directed Magistrate to pass appropriate orders on such report in accordance with law.
Imran Versus Liaquat Ali
2010 YLE 3288
KARACHI HIGH COURT SINDH
- Report of police officer to be examined judicially by Magistrate---Magistrate while exercising his
powers under S.173, Cr.P.C. does not act in a mechanical manner---Order of Magistrate must show
his application of mind, his opinion must be supported by reasons and his conclusion must be laced
with evidence showing application of judicial mind---Despite all this, order passed by Magistrate is
not a judicial order, but is an administrative order, however, it must be a judicious order.
Mst. Eram Versus Muhammad Adnan Chaudhry
2010 YLR 1580
KARACHI HIGH COURT SINDH
- Case was recommended to be disposed of in class ‘B’ on that basis, however Superintendent of
Police (Investigation) had not concurred with the said report and ordered for disposal of case under
class ‘A’---Acting on such order, a report under S.173, Cr.P.C was submitted before the Magistrate
who without having recourse to the material available with Police passed the impugned order---
Sections 457 & 380, P.P.C. and S. 14 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979, were non-compoundable---Magistrate had to apply his judicial mind while passing
such order, which was conspicuously lacking, and it was not ipsi dixit of the police to decide the fate
of a criminal case---Impugned order being not speaking one, no justification of such an order was
found from the text of impugned order---Impugned order was set aside and case was remanded to
the court of Judicial Magistrate, with the direction to pass proper, legal and speaking order afresh
after affording an opportunity of being heard to the applicant, his witnesses and State Counsel.
Meenhan Khan versus S.P. Investigation Hyderabad
2010 YLR 40
- Magistrate while scrutinizing the report under S.173,Cr.P.C. and passing order thereon, would
not act as a court of law and his order was only an administrative order; however, it must be a
speaking order giving valid reasons for his conclusion---Fact that order of Magistrate was an
administrative order, would not mean that Magistrate could act arbitrarily; it could not be a judicial
order, but it must be judicious one---Magistrate had power to disagree with the conclusion recorded
in the Police report---If the Magistrate disagreed with the police report, he had the option of ordering
further inquiry---Any other option available to the Magistrate was to take cognizance under S.190,
Cr.P.C.---Magistrate could not order cancellation of F.I.R which was in respect of offence triable by
a Court of Session.
Rasool Bux Shaikh Versus State
2010 P Cr L J 733
- Said Magistrate on such complaint would proceed with the complaint filed under S. 200, Cr.P.C
and after examining the evidence would pass appropriate order by conducting Judicial proceedings
without being influenced by his earlier order passed under S.173, Cr.P.C., which was an
administrative order judicially made.
Haji Muhammad Zakria Versus State
2010 P Cr L J 691
- Strict adherence of the Investigating Agency to the provisions of S.173 (1), Cr.P.C. stressed---If
final report cannot possibly be submitted before or after completion of investigation period prescribed
under S. 167, Cr.P.C., the Investigating Agency should strictly adhere to the provisions of S.173 (1),
Cr.P.C. and must submit interim challan through Public Prosecutor for trial and should not keep in
custody the accused arrested in the case without any legal justification for indefinite period.
Rehan Versus State
2009 SCMR 181
Supreme-Court
- Trial should normally commence, if possible, on the basis of interim report under S.173, Cr.P.C.
which must be submitted as per mandatory requirement of proviso to subsection (1) of S. 173,
Cr.P.C.---If the commencement of the trial is to be postponed, then the Court must record reasons in
writing.
Rehan Versus State
2009 SCMR 181
Supreme-Court
- SS. 156,173 , 170 & 169-Police Order (22 of 2002), Art.18(6)---Police Rules, 1934---
Investigation---Scope--- Term “investigation” has not been defined by Pakistan Penal Code, ‘1860’
and Criminal Procedure Code, 1898---Combined examination of the Criminal ‘Procedure Code,
1898, Police Order, 2002 and Police Rules, 1934, however, makes it manifest that investigation
consists of spot inspection, collection of evidence, ascertainment of facts in the, light of collected
evidence and attending circumstances of the case and apprehension of accused provided the
collected evidence is sufficient to connect him with the charge---In case the investigator comes to
the conclusion that the evidence is sufficient, he is required to prepare final report under S.173 read
with S. 170, Cr.P.C., and if he is of the opinion that the evidence is deficient, then cancellation report
is drawn up, in terms of S. 173 read with S. 169, Cr. P.C.
Irshad Muhammad Versus State
2009 P Cr L J 1458
- In the present case while examining the report under S.173, Cr.P.C., the Magistrate came to the
conclusion that the case did not warrant its disposal in ‘C-class’---Investigating Officer had simply
non-suited the complainant on the ground that the witnesses of the complainant were interested
witnesses, but Investigating Officer was not competent to express such opinion in support of
disposal of case in ‘C-class’; it was the prerogative of the court to determine as to whether the
witnesses were interested witness or not---Magistrate was bound to take appropriate legal action
against the Investigating Officer for his default in non-compliance of the direction
Hazaro Versus State
2009 YLR 2464
- Investigating Officer had recommended the disposal of the case in ‘B-class’---Judicial Magistrate
however, rejected the recommendation and directed the Investigating Officer to file challan within
one month---Validity---Where report of Investigating Officer was in positive, a proper challan on the
proforma within the meaning of clause (b) of subsection (1) of S.173, Cr.P.C. was to be filed---
However, in cases where the opinion of the Investigating Officer was in negative, the Investigating
Officer normally would file the report giving details of investigation and the reason for reaching the
conclusion---Report of Investigating officer seeking disposal of the case under ‘B-class’ reflected that
it had not been filed in the Proforma prescribed within the meaning of S.173, Cr.P.C.---Magistrate, in
circumstances, was well within his right to direct Investigating Officer to file challan---No case for
interference having been made out, application was dismissed.
Muhammad Hassan Versus State
2009 YLR 1479
Karachi High Court, Sindh.
- 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.
Matahir Shah Versus State
2009 MLD 156
- Trial Court taking cognizance’ after the challan was put in the court under S. 173, Cr.P.C., could
take cognizance of any offence disclosed by the material available on the record of the investigation,
even though police had not applied the relevant penal provisions---Charge could also be framed in
respect of an offence disclosed by the record---If any section of the relevant law was omitted from
the charge, the court had the powers to rectify its mistake---
Haleem Versus ------------
2008 PLD 1
Peshawar-High-Court-NWFP
- Ex-Officio Justice of Peace could not make any observation with regard to the nature of offence
or direct addition or deletion of a penal provision as same exclusively fell within the domain of
Investigating Officer before the challan was submitted; and thereafter the Trial Court which was fully
competent to add any offence, if made out from the F.I.R. tendered in terms of S. 173, Cr.P.C. and
other material available on the record at the time of framing of the charge---Parties also had the right
to address arguments at the time of framing of charge in support of their contentions.
Messrs Shamim Bibi
Versus
Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore
2008 YLR 2017
- SS.489-F, 504 & 506(2)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.173---Magistrate while
disagreeing with the summary report submitted by the Investigating Officer with the recommendation
for disposal of the case under “B” Class, had directed the Investigating Officer to submit the charge
sheet under S.173 Cr.P.C. before the Court having jurisdiction---Validity---Accused admittedly had
issued the cheque for the amount of Rs.197,000/- in the name of the complainant, which was
subsequently dishonoured---Accused had himself instructed the Manager of the Bank concerned to
stop payment of the said cheque through a letter, as the payment had already been made to the
complainant in cash---Accused took a contradictory stand subsequently when he wrote a letter to
complainant acknowledging that the amount of Rs.197,000/- was still outstanding and he requested
the complainant to get the payment of the said cheque from the Bank---
- Bank informed the accused by means of a letter that the payment of the said cheque to
complainant was still stopped as per instruction of the accused and the complainant once again was
put at disadvantage---Said contradictory stand taken by the accused while dealing with the
complainant had, prima facie, made out a case under S.489-F, P.P.C.---Magistrate under S.173,
Cr.P.C. while taking cognizance of the case was competent to apply his judicious mind to the
summary report and then to pass the order---Impugned order revealed that it appeared from the
police papers that the investigating team had disposed of the case under ‘B’ (false) class on account
of statements of the defence witnesses---Record, however, showed that the accused had given the
cheque, which was bounced for want of arrangement, as was also clear from the Bank record---
Accused had not denied his signatures on the cheque issued to the complainant and such prima
facie evidence could not be brushed aside---Impugned order did not suffer form any illegality---
Petition was dismissed accordingly.
Syed Hassan Raza Versus Deedar Hussain Shah
2008 PLD 305
- 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.
Ramshi Versus State
2008 YLR 1078
- Additional Sessions Judge by issuing the said direction had transgressed his jurisdiction, as it
was not open to him to have directed the challan to be submitted under a particular provision of law--
-If the requisite penal provision was not invoked by the police or the investigation was not conducted
on proper lines, Additional Sessions Judge could have asked Investigating Officer to reinvestigate
the case and submit his report under S.173, Cr.P.C.
Muhammad Iqbal Versus State
2007 MLD 995
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- S. 190---Powers of Magistrates of First Class---All Magistrates of the First Class, were

empowered to take cognizance of any offence---Under S.190(2) Cr.P.C., a Magistrate doing so of an
offence triable exclusively by a Court of Session, would, without recording any evidence, send the
case to such court for trial---Term “taking cognizance” had been judicially interpreted in its broad and
literal sense to mean “taking notice of an offence”.
Ghulam Sarwar Versus State
2008 YLR 704
Karachi-High –Court-Sindh
- Notwithstanding the recommendations of the Investigating Officer regarding cancellation of case,
it could decline to cancel the case and to proceed as provided under S. 190, Cr.P.C. and summon
accused to face trial---Magistrate or the court had not to agree with the police report blindly and pass
the order of discharge of accused in a whimsical and arbitrary manner---Order on such report was
an administrative one---When a Magistrate would concur or refuse to agree with such police report
his order though administrative in nature, but would have to be passed in a judicial fashion.
Naveed Hussain Versus Rashid Iqbal
2007 P Cr L J 1710
Shariat Court, Azad Kashmir
- 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.
Bader Maqbool Versus State
2008 MLD 1676
- Accused sought quashing of F.I.R. from High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction---High
Court disposed of the petition with a direction to Station House Officer, to file final report only against
one accused and under only one offence---Validity---Only provision relating to the subject which was
available in Criminal Procedure Code. 1898 was S. 173. which commanded expeditious conclusion
of investigations and further ordained that on conclusion of every investigation, the concerned
Station House Officer would submit a report of the result thereof in the prescribed manner to
Magistrate competent to take cognizance under S.190, Cr.P.C---No power vested with any Court,
including High Court to override the legal command and to direct Station House Officer either not to
submit investigation report (challan) or to submit the report in a particular manner.
Muhammad Nasir Cheema Versus Mazhar Javaid
2007 PLD 31
Supreme-Court
Mushtaq Hussain Bokhari Versus The State
1991 S C M R 2136
Supreme Court
SECTION 193, 403, 173
- Accused were declared innocent during investigation but Trial Court summoned to face trial –
The principle of double jeopardy not attracted in this case.
Sher Muhammad Unhar V. State
PLD 2012 S.C. 179
SECTION 204
- If a person appears before the Court pursuant to a process u/s 204 Cr.P.C in a non-bailable
offence, court cannot release him merely on filing of surety bonds rather he can be released after
giving bail.
Muhammad Iqbal Vs. Addl. Sessions Judge
PLD 2012 Lah. 33
Ref: 2010 SCMR 611.
SECTION 227 CR.P.C.
- Charge once framed, would not become rigid or irrevocable; it could be altered or changed under
S. 227, Cr.P.C., if it was so warranted by the circumstances.
Muhammad Ashraf Versus State
2008 PLD 578
SECTION 249-A & 265-K CR.P.C.
- Acquittal---Quashing of proceedings---Sections 249-A & 265-K/Cr.P.C. empowered the Courts to
acquit accused at any stage of the case---Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. was to be invoked after or without
recourse to provisions of Ss.249-A & 265-K, Cr.P.C. as the case could permit---Authority to acquit
accused at any stage of the case for permitting the abuse of the proves of court; and to secure the
ends of justice, fell within the ambit of inherent powers vested in High Court to quash the criminal
proceedings for the promotion of justice.
Zia Zakaria
Versus
Ist Additional Sessions Judge Thatta
2011 MLD 406
Section 345(2) Cr.P.C.
- Pleas of prosecution that unless the absconders appear before the Court offence could not be
compounded was not correct – application of absconders could not be disallowed. All were acquitted
U/S 345 (6) Cr.P.C.
Manzoor Ahmed Vs. 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge.
PLD 2012 Sindh 35 (D.B)
Ss. 345 Cr.P.C.
Penal Code Ss. 302, 310
Constitution Art. 212(3)
- Civil servant acquitted from murder charge by paying Diyat – Service terminated due to absence
being in detention and also the plea that payment of Diyat was equated with conviction – Held –
offence was lawfully compromised. Such acquittal of civil servant could not be takne as his
disqualification, coming in the way of his reinstatement.
Director General I.B. Vs. Muhammad Javed
2012 SCMR 165
SECTION 369 CR.P.C.
- Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C)—S. 369–Judgment–Review-Magistrate reviewing his earlier
judgment thereby reversing conviction of accused into acquittal on ground that he meant to acquittal
on ground that he meant to acquit accused but mentioned his name as one of convicts due to
oversight-Nothing on record or in earlier judgment showing intention on part of Magistrate to acquit
accused but on contrary trend of judgment showing accused equally guilty along with co-accused -
Magistrate, held, exceeded his powers in writing an unreasoned judgment of acquittal in favour of
accused – Judgments once signed and announced cannot be reviewed except for correction of
clerical errors – Questions of judicial determination arising after delivery of judgments – Must be left
for higher courts.
Ghulam Raza Versus State
1974 P CR L J 95
SECTION 382-B CR.P.C.
- Consideration of period of detention while awarding sentence to accused and giving benefit of
S.382-B, Cr.P.C.---inherent jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Petitioner had prayed for grant of
benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C. contending that it was mandatory upon the Trial Court to consider the
question of grant or otherwise of the benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C., but same had not been done in the
case of the petitioner---Validity---High Court had inherent jurisdiction to extend the benefit of the
provisions of S.382-B, Cr.P.C. to a convict---Petition filed by the petitioner was allowed and he was
extended the benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C.---Period of detention of accused as under-trial would be
counted towards his sentence.
Yasin alias Bhutto Versus The State.
2010 MLD 998
- Ss.395 & 412---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art, 22---Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service
(Constitution, Functions and powers) Act (III of 2006), Ss. 10 & 12---Dacoity and dishonestly
receiving property stolen in the commission of dacoity---Identification Parade---Procedure of
arrangements---Guidelines by High Court---procedure for making arrangements for identification
parade easier was prescribed by High Court for circulation to Prosecutor General, Advocate-
General, Additional Inspector general of Police (Investigation) and all the Sessions Judges of the
Province, who shall pursue the same and circulate it to al concerned and subordinate courts and
offices for appropriate legal action and observance.
Walayat Versus State
2008 PLD 470
Sect. 403 of Cr.P.C
Article 13 of the Constitution
- Same Offence/ Double Jeopardy
Difference in elements to be proved in two instances would not make them same offence.
Charges before Accountability Court were under Ss. 9(a) & 10(a) of NAB Ord. which related to
fraudulent misappropriation, dishonest/corrupt practices or obtaining any benefit willfully which he
could not obtain lawfully – Offence under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 related to violation & non-
compliance of statutory requirements in respect of books of accounts, keeping true and fair contents
of balance sheet and making false statement – So essential ingredients in both cases were quite
different. Appellant could be prosecuted under Companies Ordinance, 1984 and same would not
amount to double jeopardy in terms of Art. 13 of the Constitution & Sect. 403 of Cr.P.C.
Muhammad Nadeem Anwar Vs. Securities & Exchange Commission
PLD 2012 Peshawar 15.
Ss. 410 & 417(2-A).
- Principles of appeal against acquittal were different from the ones against
conviction Presumption of innocence of accused was double in case of acquittal. Principles on
question of setting aside acquittal enumerated in 2009 SCMR 946.
Rab Nawaz Vs. Abdul Rahman
PLD 2012 Peshawar 32.
Sec 491 read with sec.12 &25 of Guardian & Wards act 1890
- Jurisdiction of criminal courts u/s 491 Cr.P.C is not ousted on account of provisions of section 12
, 25 of guardian and wards Act, criminal courts have jurisdiction where custody has been illegally
removed from lawful custody.
PLD 1995 SC 633
1988 SCMR 1891
PLD 1969 SC 187
SEC. 561-A
- Criminal cannot review to orders – however any order passed without jurisdiction could be
recalled or varied under inherent powers.
PLD 1995 SC 633
PLD 1970 SC335
- S.489-F---Quashing of proceedings---Challan in the case was submitted against al the persons
named in the F.I.R.---Two accused persons/Petitioners moved application for their discharge, but the
Trial Court refused to discharge them despite the fact; that in report under S. 173, Cr.P.C., both
petitioners were placed in column No.2 with the remarks that they were innocent---Complainant had
specifically alleged that cheque in question was issued by person other than the petitioners---High
Court, on petition under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C., had come to the conclusion that case against petitioners
could not proceed on the basis of record and directed the Trial Court not to proceed against them
with direction that case against petitioners would be regarded having been cancelled.
Muhammad Younis Versus State
2006 P CR L J 994
SECTION 9 & 561-A CR.P.C.
- Protective/enabling bail is nowhere defined or provided in Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.
- It is an injunctive order in exercise of inherent powers by High court, which is being termed as
protective or enabling bail---Court of session does not have inherent powers under S.561-A, Cr.P.C.
and being creation of S.9 Cr.P.C., Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge are competent to
grant post-arrest bail in cases pertaining to their sessions division---Court of Session is not vested
with inherent powers to pass restraining order/enabling bail in cases pertaining to another sessions
division.
Naseer Ahmed Versus State
2009 PCrLJ 1430
SECTION 491 & 561-A CR.P.C.
- Ss.491 & 561-A---Habeas Corpus Petition---Maintainability---Custody of minors---Cases

pertaining to custody of children should not be decided on technicalities---Where petition under
S.491, Cr.P.C is not found to be competent due to absence of element of illegal custody by the
father of his own child, High Court can also pass an appropriate order in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction.
Natasha Rashid Versus Rashid Zar
2010 PLD 119
SECTION 497 CR.P.C.
- S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), SS. 302/201/148/149---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry--
- Accused persons though were nominated in the F.I.R., but no direct evidence was available on
record regarding murder of the deceased---Though murder of a human being had been committed,
but there was no reason, especially in the absence of any direct evidence to connect accused
persons with the alleged crime---None amongst accused persons had been attributed specific role---
During the investigation two accused persons were found innocent and placed in column No. 2 in the
report submitted under S. 173, Cr. P.C., while another one was placed in column No.3---Such facts
had made case against accused persons one of further inquiry entitling accused for grant of bail.
Shah Nawaz Versus State
2009 YLR 2300
- Only one firearm injury suffered by deceased had not been specifically attributed to any one of
said six accused person---Complainant and prosecution witnesses made a vague and general
allegation that six accused person, including accused resorted to firing in the darkness of night as a
result of which the deceased suffered one fire shot, which proved fatal; in other words six accused
persons including accused had been lodged judicial lock-up for having caused one injury to the
deceased---Trial Court did not take into consideration the mode and manner of the incident set up in
the F.I.R.---Accused was extremely old man---Senior Medical Officer, Jail Hospital found accused
patient of “Parkinsonism” and his whole body was shivering uncontrollably and as a result the iron
handcuff injured his wrist joint---Section 497, first proviso Cr.P.C. had clearly laid down that any sick
or infirm person, accused of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for 10 years, could
be released on bail.
Mansabdar Versus State
2009 MLD 641
- 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.
Muhammad Rafique Versus State
2008 P Cr L J 351
Shariat-Court-Azad-Kashmir
- Accused was not named in F.I.R., but his name had surfaced in the case for the first time through
a supplementary statement made by the complainant after six days of the alleged occurrence-
Complainant had implicated accused exclusively on the basis of an extra-judicial confession
allegedly made jointly by two accused before the complainant---Said joint extra-judicial confession
was devoid of any evidentiary value---Complainant, in the F.I.R., had specifically nominated three
culprits, in supplementary statement made by him, he exonerated said nominated culprits and
instead introduced five others including accused as the culprits---
- No stolen article had been recovered from the possession of accused during investigation in the
case---Although a pistol had been recovered from the custody of accused, during the investigation,
but prima facie, nothing was available on the record of investigation to connect said pistol with the
alleged offence---Investigation of the case had already been completed and the report under S. 173,
Cr.P.C. had been submitted by the police and it had expressly been recorded in the report that
accused had never entered the house where alleged occurrence had taken place and throughout the
said occurrence; accused kept on standing out in the street---Case against accused, calling for
further inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection (2) of S. 497, Cr.P.C., he was admitted
to bail, in circumstances.
Muhammad Yousaf Versus State
2008 P Cr L J 1762
- S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), SS. 302/324/337-A (i), (ii), (vi)/ L(1), (2)/148/149---Bail, grant
of---Son of complainant, according to F.I.R., had been injured by co-accused and in the mid of
incident accused had raised “Lalkara” upon which co-accused gave injuries to the injured
prosecution witness---Accused had not caused any injury either to the deceased or to the injured
witness---Whether the accused had shared common intention with co-accused was a question of
further inquiry---Incident had taken place at the spur of the moment--- Submission of report under S.
173, Cr.P.C. was not a bar to the grant of bail to the accused at any stage of the case.
Shahid Hussain Versus State
2007 YLR 1179
- According to F.I.R. itself accused, was empty handed at that time---Accused had not caused any
injury to any person during alleged occurrence and only role attributed to him in the F.I.R. was that of
catching hold of deceased and facilitating his co-accused to fire at deceased which allegation prima
facie appeared to be unbelievable.
- Investigation of the case had already been finalized and report under S.173, Cr.P.C. had been
submitted according to which investigating agency had found that accused was not present at the
scene of the crime at relevant time and that he had arrived at the spot after the main incident was
already over, he was admitted to bail.
Muhammad Saleem Versus State
2007 YLR 1030
- S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), SS.302, 324, 148 & 149---Bail, refusal of---Case of one
deceased and one injured, who had received fire-arm injuries on the vital part of her body, which
injuries were attributed to accused---Injured person supporting the prosecution case had made
statement against accused---Contention of accused that he had been declared innocent, was totally
wrong---Counsel for accused had himself produced copy of challan/report under section 173,
Cr.P.C. wherein name of accused had been placed in Column No.3, while his co-accused had been
placed in Column No.2 being proclaimed offenders and had been shown in red ink---No merit having
been found in the petition, same was dismissed.
Ghulam Rasool Versus State
2007 P Cr L J 1751
- Injury on person of injured had been declared as falling within the purview of S. 336, P.P.C. only
on the basis of damages of one nerve and not due to the loss of “Salahiat” of ear---Whether S. 336,
P.P.C. was made out or not, was the question of further inquiry---Other injury attributed to
respondent/ accused fell within purview of S. 337-F(iii), P.P.C. which was punishable with three
years’ imprisonment.
- Application for cancellation of bail, having no merit, was dismissed.
Muhammad Akbar Versus Muhammad Akhtar
2006 YLR 3123
- No specific manner/procedure for filing of petition for cancellation of bail had been prescribed
either in control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 or in Criminal Procedure Code, 1898---Section
487 (5), Cr.P.C., had conferred unrestricted powers on High Court and on the Court of Session in
case of a person released by itself or by any other Court for his arrest for committing to custody---
Powers of cancellation of bail under S.497(5), Cr.P.C could in no manner, be restricted to any
specific class of persons because such intention of Legislature did not flow from those provisions---
Petition for cancellation of bail being continuation of proceedings of grant of bail, could be followed
by the Prosecutor who appeared in bail matters, on the basis of authority conferred on him---Section
47 of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 had made Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898
applicable.
State Versus Malik Amir
2005 YLR 1411
SECTION 497(2)
- Bail cannot be refused only due to alleged abscondence – abscondence is a factor relevant only
to propriety.
Qamar alias Mitho V. The State.
PLD 2012 S.C. 222.
SECTION 498 CR.P.C.
- S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), SS. 337-A(i)(ii) & 337-F(v)/34---Pre-arrest bail, confirmation
of---Only one injury fell under S. 337-A(ii), P.P.C., which was attributed to co-accused and other
injuries in the case fell under SS.337-A(i) & 337-F(i), P.P.C., which were bailable---Even otherwise,
accused had joined the investigation and report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. had been submitted before
the Trial Court and no useful purpose would be served by sending accused to jail---Ad interim pre-
arrest bail already granted to accused was confirmed, in circumstances.
Tariq Sajjad alias Tahir alias Tahli
Versus
State
2008 MLD 332
- S.498---offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984), Ss.5(6), 10 & 12--
-Ad interim pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---Jurisdiction of High Court.
- Claim in respect of ouster of power of High Court concerning any matter or subject available to it
under Codes of Civil or Criminal Procedure, could not be lightly accepted, unless there was a clear,
definite and positive provisions ousting the jurisdiction---Express words or clear intendment or
necessary implication were required to take away the jurisdiction of a High court or any other
superior court.
Abdul Rasheed Versus The State
2003 PLD 682
SECTION 561-A CR.P.C.
- Provisions of S. 561-A, Cr.P.C had saved/protected inherent jurisdiction of High Court to pass
any order to secure the ends of justice and prevent the abuse of process of the court.
M. Naeem
Versus
The State through Prosecutor General, Province of Sindh..
2010 P Cr. L J 1039
- S. 561-A---inherent jurisdiction under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C.---Scope---Proceedings under section
561-A, Cr.P.C. do not provide any additional or alternate remedy and High Court cannot assume the
function of Trial Court; however, in appropriate cases, in order to avoid the abuse of process of
Court, High Court in exercise of its power under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. can quash the proceedings.
Dr. Muhammad Naseem Versus State
2009 YLR 252
- S.561-A---Quashing of order---inherent jurisdiction of High Court-Scope.
- Purpose of invoking provisions of S.561-A, Cr.P.C. was mainly to prevent abuse of process of
court; and to secure the ends of justice.
Khuda Bux Versus The State
2010 P MLD 864
- High Court possessed inherent powers under S.561-A, Cr.P.C., but said provisions were not
meant for the purpose of thwarting the criminal proceedings pending in the lower courts and the High
Court, ordinarily, would not interfere at intermediate stage of criminal proceedings in a subordinate
Court---In certain cases wherein apparently a miscarriage of justice had occurred and there was no
probability of any kind of conviction and that apparently the continuation of the proceedings
amounted to abuse of process of law, the High Court; in order to prevent the abuse of process of
Court, must interfere and if the prosecution, on the face of it, was illegal, the proceedings in such
cases could be rightly quashed.
Muhammad Ali Versus Muhammad Aslam.
2002 MLD 726
- Quashing of order or proceedings---Jurisdiction of High Court---Scope and nature---High Court, in
exercise of its power under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. normally would refrain from interfering in normal course
of trial or subordinate courts, particularly where evidence had not been recorded---Inherent
jurisdiction of High Court could not be invoked merely because accused considered allegations
leveled against them to be false---Jurisdiction under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. was not additional or alternate
but such powers were to be exercised sparingly to correct errors of law in exceptional cases.
Abdul Hussain Versus Muhammad Shabbir.
2000 YLR 1603
- Quashing of F.I.R.---Disputed question of facts could not be gone into by High Court while
exercising its extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction---If an offence had, prima facie, been
committed, the same should be inquired into and tried by Trial Court---inherent jurisdiction of High
Court was not an alternative or additional jurisdiction.
Sh. Naveedur Rehman Versus The State.
2010 P Cr. L J 1340
- Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ---S. 561-A---Inherent powers of High Court---High Court in
appropriate case can exercise jurisdiction under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. as the powers of High Court are
co-extensive with powers of Trial Courts under Ss. 265-K or 249-A, Cr.P.C.
Muhammad Nawaz Versus State
1994 MLD 1102
- Constitution of Pakistan 1973----Art. 199---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 561-A &
156---Constitutional jurisdiction and inherent powers of High Court---Interference with investigation
and re-investigation---Superior Courts cannot control investigations and re-investigations, but are
empowered to strike down any order of re-investigation if the same is based on mala fides or is
ulteriorly motivated---Court cannot stop the investigation and cannot strike down an order of re-
investigation merely on the ground that previously a police officer has finalized the investigation.
Ghulam Abbas Shah
Versus
D.I.G of Police, Rawalpindi Range, Rawalpindi.
2001 YLR 186
- S. 561-A---Inherent powers of High Court---Scope---Prima facie case---Effect---Inherent
jurisdiction is not an alternative or additional jurisdiction---Such is only in the interest of justice to
redress grievances for which no other procedure is available---Power given by S.561-A, Cr.P.C.
cannot be so utilized as to interrupt or divert ordinary course of criminal procedure as laid down in
procedural statute---criminal cases should proceed before courts concerned in accordance with
normal law---If prima facie case is made out, the proper course is that the same be tried---Mere
claim of innocence by accused can never be considered sufficient to justify such departure because
if the same was permitted then every accused person would opt to stifle prosecution and to have his
guilt or innocence determined under S.561-A, Cr.P.C.
Muhammad Channah
Versus
Province of Sindh through Home Secretary.
2011 P Cr. L J 952
Karachi High Court, Singh
- S.561-A---inherent powers of High Court---inherent jurisdiction of High Court under S.561-A,
Cr.P.C. is not of an alternate or additional character and is to be invoked rarely only in the interest of
justice for seeking redress of grievances, in the absence of any other procedure---Section 561-A,
Cr.P.C. should not be availed to obstruct or to divert the ordinary course of criminal procedure.
Muhammad Ghufran Versus The State
2010 P Cr. L J 351
- S. 561-A---inherent jurisdiction of High Court, exercise of---Exercise under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. has
to be made sparingly and rarely in most appropriate cases in order to save a party from harassment
and abuse of the process of the court---Nevertheless, jurisdiction of High Court under S.561-A,
Cr.P.C. is very wide and indefinable, but the same has to be exercised subject to limitations imposed
by law and it cannot by pass the express provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.
Ghafoor Aslam Versus State
2009 P Cr L J 1108
- Inherent jurisdiction of High court, exercise of---No invariable rule of law exists for the exercise of
jurisdiction under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C---It depends on the facts of each case whether to allow the
proceedings to continue or to nip the same in the bud.
Ghafoor Aslam Versus State
2009 P Cr L J 1108
- Art. 199---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A---Quashing of F.I.R.---Practice and
procedure---High Court is always reluctant in quashing the F.I.R. in exercise of constitutional
jurisdiction and inherent powers, but at the same time it is high time for taking effective legal steps to
keep the government functionaries, departments, institutions and agencies within their allotted
sphere.
Rashid Mirza Versus Regional Director
2009 MLD 25
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore.
- When on the face of it no case was made out against the accused, or there was lack of
jurisdiction or when there was sheer abuse of the process of law, High Court under its inherent
powers under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. could quash the F.I.R. or even proceedings for that matter---
Impugned F.I.R was based on mala fides and ulterior motives and the same being not sustainable
was quashed accordingly.
Nizar Ali Fazwani Versus Pak Golf Leasing Company Ltd.
2009 CLD 237
- Ss.561-A, 63 & 169---inherent jurisdiction---Scope---Court can rectify the injustice done in the
case, when the, order was a result of mala fides on the part of the police in getting the accused
discharged by Magistrate.
Tariq Habib Versus State
2009 YLR 1364
- SS. 419, 420,468 & 471- Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---Criminal procedure
Code (V of 1898), SS. 63,195(1)(c), 435, 439 & 561-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art, 185 (3)-
--Inherent jurisdiction of High Court, exercise of---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 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.---Magistrate while concurring with a police report submitted under S.173, Cr.P.C. did not
act as criminal Court subordinate to the Court of Session and High Court---Such order of Magistrate
could not be set aside, revised or modified under the provisions of SS.435 and 439, Cr.P.C. but it
was amenable to inherent jurisdiction of High Court under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. provided the order
amounted to abuse of process of Court---Magistrate could effectively grant release to a person who
was arrested or detained without sufficient cause---High Court was vested with authority under
S.561-A. Cr.P.C. to exercise such power to secure ends of justice, suppress patent mischief if non-
interference with the order would perpetuate injustice, in case the Magistrate concerned had passed
the order without judicial application of mind---Supreme Court did not find any infirmity or illegality in
the Judgment passed by High Court---Leave to appeal was refused.
Hidayatullah and others
Versus
The State through Advocate-General, N.W.F.P.
Peshawar High Court, Peshawar
2006 SCMR 1920
Supreme-Court
- Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C)---S.561-A---Inherent jurisdiction of High Court---Concept
elucidated. Power under section 561-A, Cr.P.C is not mean to stifle the prosecution but it is intended
to prevent the abuse of the process of court. For quashing proceeding at the initial stage before
framing the charge and recording the evidence the Court has to consider the allegations made
against the accused on their face value and if a prima facie case is made out the Court can refuse
the quashment. The High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C cannot assume the role of trial Court
and evaluate/assess the evidence which is yet to come. It is the function of the trial Court. High court
cannot embark upon such an exercise to determine the guilt or innocence of a person by way of a
detailed enquiry. The accused may have a good defence but they have to pass the test of cross-
examination and the appreciation of defence evidence is also the duty of the trial Court in the light of
the statutory provisions and the dictums laid down by the superior courts. The jurisdiction under
section 561-A, Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary one and powers vested in the High Court are to be
exercised sparingly and not generally or as a matter of routine.
Gulam Mustafa Versus State
1999 YLR 1616
- Application for sending the case to the Court of Magistrate under Section 30, Cr.P.C. having
been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, the accused had filed petition under S.561-A,
Cr.P.C. which had been converted by the High Court into a revision--Courts below had failed to
appreciate the fact that S.31 P.P.C. which deals with cases relating to Qatl-e-Khata, was an
independent offence and had no nexus with S.302, P.P.C. which deals with cases relating to Qatl-e-
Amd.
Shaukat Hussain Versus The State.
2002 P Cr. L J 432
- Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ---S, 151---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A---
Inherent jurisdiction of High Court—Application for quashing of plaint under S. 151, C.P.C. pending
adjudication---Maintainability---Juxtaposed examination of S.151, C.P.C and S.561-A, Cr.P.C---
Courts are equipped with necessary enabling powers to pass orders to do acts which are necessary
to do substantial justice between the parties, within the framework of reason, good conscience and
fairness---Necessary elements for exercise of such power enumerated---High Court, in exercise of
its authority under S.151,C.P.C. cannot entertain any application to quash a plaint/appeal which is
before either the court of trial or the court of appeal---Power of High Court under S.151, C.P.C. is not
coextensive with the power of the court below and can be exercised only where the lis is pending
before High Court---courts of trial, courts of appeal and revisional courts are invested with powers
by specific provision of Cr.P.C to do the said job---Principles---High Court in view of S.561-A. Cr.P.C.
is not subject to limitation and is empowered to recall or alter its order if some mandatory provisions
of law have been violated---[Irshad Ahmad v. Muhammad Jamil PLD 1994 Lah. 583 dissented from.
Sajjad Amjad Versus Abdul Hameed
1998 PLD 474
- Prima facie it appeared that entire material collected by the Investigating Officer, was considered
by the Magistrate and then passed the order on merits and discussed all merits and demands of the
case---Validity---Powers of High Court under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. were to be used not in each and
every case, but rarely in appropriate cases and there must be a material on the basis of which
orders passed by the courts below be set aside---When two courts below came to the conclusion
that no fruitful result would be achieved, if matter proceeded, no interference was required---
Magistrate was not to fill the lacuna left by the Investigating Officer and to act as Investigating Officer
of the case or to be a party, but he had only to scrutinize the matter on available material and it
would depend upon him to agree or disagree with police report---Counsel for applicant had failed to
show any illegality which amounted to an abuse of the process of law---Orders passed by the two
courts below were proper, legal and in accordance with law and no illegality or material irregularity
was committed by the courts below.
Matahir Shah Versus State
2009 MLD 156
SECTIONS 561-A, 439-A & 439 CR.P.C.
- Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C)---Ss. 561-A; 439-A & 439---Inherent power of High Court---
Effect on other courts---High Court, no doubt, has inherent powers-under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. to
interfere with any order or proceedings in the interest of justice or where miscarriage of justice has
been caused or where such an interference has been necessitated to meet the ends of justice, but
vesting of such general power in the High Court cannot be said to have the effect of depriving other
courts of the powers conferred on them by or under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Tariq Versus State
1994 P CR L J 2297
SECTIONS 561-A & 435 CR.P.C.
- 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
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
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
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
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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Attempt to commit qatl-e-amd---Quashing of F.I.R.---Plea of alibi raised by the petitioner could

not be taken into consideration at the present stage and it could be adjudicated upon during trial and
so was the opinion of Investigating Officer.
Abdur Rashid Versus State
2010 P. Cr. L J 1452
- Qatl-e-amd---Bail, refusal of---Contentions raised on behalf of accused, were such which could
be agitated and scanned at trial stage and not at bail stage, because if same were discussed and
decided, same would amount to deeper appreciation of evidence, which was not permissible---Such
discussion would also cause expression of opinion before trial, which was not viewed with
appreciation.
- Plea of alibi raised during arguments could be relevant, but that too could be weighed after
complete evidence was recorded.
Rehman Ullah Versus State
2010 P.Cr.L.J 1319
- Investigating Officer in the case had recorded statements of six persons who stated that on
relevant date accused was not present at place of occurrence as he on said date had gone to
another place in connection with Fateha of father of his relative---Investigating Officer in
circumstances had believed the statements, recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. regarding the plea of
alibi taken by accused---Investigating Officer could not release an accused on the basis of
statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C. or under S.164, Cr.P.C., unless such statements were
proved to be true by the court of competent jurisdiction---Plea of alibi was required to be proved
through exhaustive evidence and not merely on the statements of few persons recorded under
S.161, Cr.P.C.---Investigating Officer had acted upon the statements recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.
which was yet to be proved at trial stage and it had no evidentiary value.
Mameez Khan Versus State
2010 P Cr. L J 1137
- Whether surrender of accused to the process of law unlike his absconding co-accused, his plea
of alibi and absence of any empty from the spot of occurrence, were compatible with his innocence
or guilt, were the questions requiring further inquiry---Accused was admitted to bail in circumstances.
Asmatullah Khan Versus State
2010 P. Cr. L. J 83
- Accused was nominated in the F.I.R. with a specific role, but according to his plea of alibi he was
performing his duty on the day of occurrence in an Army operation---Said plea stood verified by the
Investigating Officer and even a discharge report was submitted, which was not agreed to by the
Magistrate---Earlier bail petition of accused had been dismissed as having not been pressed with a
direction to trial Court to conclude the trial within two months---Trial could not be concluded within
the specified period as complainant had filed a private complaint and no proceedings were taken in
the State case---Said facts had made the case of accused that of further inquiry within the ambit of
S.497(2), Cr.P.C.---Trial in State case had not so far commenced---Bail was allowed to accused in
circumstances.
Said Badshah Versus State
2010 MLD 1553
- Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Accused had from the very initial stage taken the plea of alibi
which was thoroughly investigated by the Investigating Officer who had found accused innocent and
released him under S.169, Cr.P.C.---Such release of accused though subsequently was set aside by
the High Court in the quashing petition, but accused was not debarred from moving a fresh
application under S.497, Cr.P.C.---Statements of independent witness recorded under S.161,
Cr.P.C. and S.164, Cr.P.C. had brought the case of accused within purview of further inquiry---Plea
of alibi raised by accused and investigated by the Investigating Agency could not be brushed aside
outrightly, while considering the prayer of bail of accused.
Muhammad Jabbar Versus Shah Daraz Khan
2009 P. Cr. L. J 370
- Accused was nominated in the F.I.R. with specific role, but from the findings of Investigating
Officer with regard to plea of alibi taken by accused, it was established beyond any shadow of doubt
that accused was very much present at his native city where he had his own business and at the
time of occurrence he was not present at the place of occurrence, but was conducting his regular
business at said place of his business---Accused was also declared innocent in police findings.
- Ad-interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused, was confirmed, in circumstances.
Sh. Muhammad Gulzar Versus State
2009 P. Cr. L J 163
- Accused was declared innocent during investigation and his name was placed in Column No.2 of
the challan, as his plea of alibi was accepted on the basis of admissible evidence; number of
witnesses appearing before the Investigating Officer who were present along with the accused in the
mosque to offer prayer at the time of alleged occurrence---Bail was granted to accused.
Rehmatullah Butt Versus State
2009 P Cr. L J 104
- Defence version was neither plausible nor believable as both accused in support of their plea of
alibi, did not depose on oath in the court---Adverse inference though in ordinary course, could not be
drawn against accused for not recording his statement on oath as provided under S.340(2), Cr.P.C.,
but in view of specific plea of alibi taken by accused, burden had shifted to them to prove such plea,
but accused were not ready to support such plea by their own statements---Effect---Prosecution had
successfully proved that accused persons had committed murder of both deceased---Deceased
were murdered on account of alleged “Siakari” (Zina) and accused found both deceased in
objectionable position---Accused, in circumstances were rightly found guilty under S.302(c), P.P.C.,
instead of S.302(b), P.P.C.
Daleel Khan Versus Sessions Judge, Kalat Division
2008 MLD 1663
Quetta High Court, Balochistan
- S.302(c)---Plea of alibi ---Failure of accused to record statement on Oath---Accused persons in
support of their plea of alibi did not enter into witness box to depose on oath---Though in ordinary
course, no adverse inference could be drawn against an accused for not recording his statement on
oath as provided under S.340(2), Cr.P.C., but in view of specific plea of alibi taken by accused
persons in the case, burden was shifted to them to prove such plea, but they were not ready to
support such plea by their own statements.
Daleel Khan Versus Sessions Judge, Kalat Division
2008 MLD 1663
- When the plea of alibi was raised at the earlier possible stage of the occurrence and same was
duly supported by some materials brought on record, it could be taken into account even at bail
stage---In the present case both accused persons had raised the pleas of alibi at the earliest
possible opportunity which were enquired into by the Investigating officer supported by statements of
independent witnesses and documentary evidence and after due verification found both of them to
be innocent---All facts when taken together and assessed tentatively, had made the case of accused
person as one of further inquiry and took it out of the embargo contained in S.497, Cr.P.C. entitling
them to the concession of bail---Accused were admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Shakil Khan Versus State
2008 YLR 2520
Peshawar-High Court, NWFP
- Plea of alibi of accused was not believable because affidavit in that respect was not supported by
any other proof---Plea of alibi raised by co-accused, was also doubtful as no document was on
record to prove that at the specific time of occurrence, he was on duty as claimed by him---Bail
application of accused was dismissed, in circumstances
Muhammad Khan versus State
2008 PLD 45
Peshawar-High Court, NWFP
- Evidence on record had established that at the time of commission of offence accused was 71
years old---Son of accused and certain other residents of Illaqa had produced affidavits to the effect
that at time of occurrence, accused was present with them in the mosque offering Zohar prayer; in
that they had tried to make out a case for alibi which could not be considered at bail stage,
especially when accused had not taken said plea of alibi before the lower courts or before High
Court in the grounds of bail application.
Wazir Khan Versus State
2008 PLD 42
- Plea of alibi taken by accused that he was admitted in Hospital and remained under treatment,
was not acceptable because that was an after-thought as said plea of alibi was not taken by accused
during investigation---Trial Court had rightly rejected plea of alibi of accused.
Shah Nawaz Versus State
2008 YLR 2449
- Accused although had been found innocent during investigation on his plea of alibi , yet he did
not prove the said plea before the Trial Court---Conviction of accused was maintained in
circumstances.
Rehmat Ali Versus State
2008 YLR 1361
- First version of accused was before the police that at the relevant time he was present on the
duty and he produced documentary evidence and witnesses in support of his such plea of
alibi, where after he was found innocent during the course of investigation and was placed in
Column No.2 of the challan---Accused, in circumstances, had made out a prima facie case falling
under sub-section (2) to S.497, Cr.P.C and was entitled to the concession of bail---Accused was
admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Muhammad Zamir Versus State
2008 YLR 714
- Plea of alibi taken by accused that they had gone to Iran and were not present in the country on
the day of occurrence, was not raised by them before the Investigating Officer and was raised at the
trial after taking legal advice from an expert---Accused had failed to prove the said specific plea by
adducing cogent and convincing evidence which they were obliged to do under the law, and they
could not blame the prosecution for having failed to prove that fact---Defence evidence produced by
accused in support of their plea of alibi did not inspire confidence---Photographs produced by
accused had no evidentiary value and the hotel bill produced by them was also of no significance as
the same could very easily be maneuvered---Accused could not produce the embarkation card
which was an authentic source of information regarding passenger’s immigration---Report of
Forensic Science Laboratory had revealed that the photographs on the passports had been
changed---Accused, thus, had failed to prove the plea of alibi .
Kashif Saddique Versus State
2008 P Cr L J 1039
- Plea of alibi as advanced by defence witness being oral in nature and unsupported by any other
source did not hold any water---Said evidence was useless and no reliance could be placed upon
the same.
Khadim Hussain alias Khawar Versus State
2008 MLD 771
- Plea for bail was the plea of alibi---Accused had contended that on the date of incident he was
admitted to hospital where he was under treatment---Police recorded the statement of doctor
concerned who confirmed that accused was under his treatment on the day of occurrence---Plea of
alibi coupled with delay in lodging F.I.R and recording the statements of prosecution witnesses, had
created reasonable doubt about the involvement of accused---Case of further inquiry into the guilt of
accused had been made out.
Muhammad Bachal alias Bachal Chandio
Versus
State
2008 YLR 1733
- Pre-arrest bail, grant of---Mater was subjudice before Judicial Magistrate---On the day of alleged
incident, accused was at place ‘K’ where he was attending the proceedings of case in the Court of
Judicial Magistrate---Criminal proceedings at place ‘L’ in circumstances, had been motivated to
harass and humiliate accused---Question of alibi, however, would be considered by the Trial Court---
Sections of P.P.C., mentioned in F.I.R., were bailable in nature except S.506-B, P.P.C.--- Accused,
in circumstances, had succeeded in making out a prima facie case that .F.I.R had been manipulated
with ulterior motives---Accused in circumstances was entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.
Muhammad Farooq Khan
Versus
Province of Sindh
2008 MLD 805
- Police entry made in the Roznamcha of Police Station, was yet to be produced in the evidence
and that was subject to proof by examining the witnesses---Accused appeared to have taken the
plea of alibi through said Police entry, which plea had to be examined after producing the evidence
at the time of trial---Said points could be properly appreciated after assessing and appreciating the
evidence led by the parties---Only tentative assessment of evidence was required to be undertaken
at bail stage and the deeper appreciation of evidence was the function of the Trial Court, which could
be done at the time of trial---Accused being not entitled to the concession of bail, his bail application
was dismissed.
Muhammad Arshad Versus State
2008 MLD 627
- Appreciation of evidence---Plea of alibi---Burden of proof---Accused raising plea of alibi has to
discharge the burden by producing satisfactory, reliable and authenticated evidence that his
presence at the place of incident at the relevant time was not possible because of his presence at
the relevant time at another place.
Moulvi Taj Muhammad Versus State
2007 P CR L J 1891
- Appreciation of evidence---alibi---Accused after issue of search warrants and proclamation
getting certificate of his presence in another District from a Government official who had certified his
presence before him on the day of occurrence---Conduct of accused, held, indicative of his
knowledge of his involvement in the case and an effort to procure evidence for his alibi.
2007 P CR L J 1891
- Plea of alibi---Accused to appear in witness box to prove such plea---No adverse, inference,
though can be drawn against an accused person for not appearing in witness box in disproof of
allegations and charge, but if he had taken a specific plea and burden to prove such plea was upon
him, then he should appear in witness-box in support of this such plea.
2007 PCRLJ 1891
- Plea of alibi raised by accused during course of investigation found favour with Investigating
Officer who chose to place accused in column No.2 of the report under S.173, Cr.P.C.---Ipsi dixit of
the police, was not binding on the court---Even otherwise while granting bail in murder cases, courts
were generally reluctant to entertain plea of alibi, unless same was absolutely beyond question. Bail
petition was dismissed.
Mairaj Versus State
2007 YLR 2081
- Accused, according to police record, had raised plea of alibi at the very outset which was
confirmed during the course of investigation---Accused was declared innocent and his name was
placed in Column-2 of the challan. Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Munawar Hussain Versus State
2007 YLR 404
- Only allegation against accused was that he caused injuries to prosecution witness---None of
said injuries attracted prohibitory clause of S.497(1),Cr.P.C.---Accused had been declared to be
innocent during investigation and his plea of alibi that he was on duty in a factory in another city
where he was employed, had found favour with the investigating agency--- Report for the discharge
had been formulated, but Magistrate refused to agree with said police request.
- Accused was resident of “M” District and nothing was on record to show that he had any social
intercourse with complainant party, which was resident of District ‘K’---Ever since he arrest,
consistent stand of accused was that he was totally unconnected in the matter and had nothing to do
with the incident. Accused was admitted to bail, in circumstances.
Zafar Iqbal Versus State
2007 P. Cr. L. J 555
- Both the said accused persons had produced their witnesses during the course of investigation in
support of their plea of alibi which was verified by the two Investigating Officers, whereby they were
declared innocent---Discharge report was prepared and said accused were accordingly discharged
by the Judicial Magistrate vide impugned order which was a speaking and legal order---Reasoning
had been given by the Magistrate qua discharge of the accused persons---Complainant had got
remedy to file a private complaint against those accused who had either been declared innocent or
discharged.
Muhammad Arif
Versus
Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Sheikhupura
2007 YLR 2946
- Pre-arrest bail, pendency of---Deeper appreciation of evidence---Plea of alibi---Role of public
prosecutor---Accused sought pre-arrest bail on the plea of alibi, as he was under treatment of two
doctors---During the pendency of bail application accused sought summoning of both the doctors---
Trial Court allowed the application with the consent of parties but subsequently the order was
recalled as one of the two doctors was a prosecution witness---Validity---Deciding application for bail
did not call for elaborate sifting of evidence---For the purpose of tentative assessment of evidence in
order to satisfy itself about correctness of documents produced by accused, Trial Court could have
summoned and perused relevant record, if it was expedient in the circumstances of the case---Trial
Court went ahead and proceeded to examine a doctor, who was said to have treated the accused---
Impropriety did not stop there but the doctor who was summoned was offered to be cross-examined
by both the parties---
- Such exercise by Trial Court was in excess of tentative assessment of evidence and beyond
contemplation of S.497 Cr.P.C.---In entire proceedings, role of prosecutor appeared to have been
diminished and was conspicuously invisible---Public Prosecutor under S.493, Cr.P.C. was supposed
to appear and plead in all Courts ---Law provided that if any private person instructed a pleader to
prosecutor in any Court on his behalf, even then public prosecutor would conduct prosecution and
privately engaged pleader would act in Court under his direction---Orders relating to summoning of
doctors were passed by Trial Court without seeking meaningful assistance of prosecutor which
resulted in passing of two consecutive, uncalled for, improper, perverse and illegal orders, which
resulted in unreasonable prolongation of bail application and caused multiplicity of litigation---Orders
passed by Trial Court regarding summoning of two doctors was set aside.
Qamar Mukhtiar Khan Versus State
2007 P Cr L J 149
INHERENT POWERS
- Restraining a Judge from exercising his judicial power and from discharging the obligations cast
on him by the Constitution---Effect---Even a temporary interference with the office of the Chief
Justice or of a Judge, even when he had not been suspended but in fact appointed to another
judicial office, amounted to his “removal from office”---No constitutional, the legal and the legislative
frame-work of Pakistan recognize any inherent, ancillary or incidental powers with the competent
authority to suspend or to restrain from working, Chief Justice of Pakistan whose tenure in office
stood guaranteed by the Constitution---Chief Justice of Pakistan could not be suspended from office
or could be restrained from exercising the judicial’ powers appertaining to his office, in exercise of
some alleged inherent, ancillary, implied or implicit powers, vesting in the President.
Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry
Versus
President of Pakistan through Secretary.
2010 PLD 61
Supreme Court
- Inherent power of High Court---Review---Sanctity of finality is, no doubt, attached to a judgment
passed by a criminal Court by virtue of section 369 Cr.P.C., but High Court under its inherent power
can review or recall its judgment or order if found to have been passed without jurisdiction, without
adjudication on merits, in violation of any law or obtained by playing fraud on the Court.
Habib-ur-Rehman Versus The State.
2010 P Cr. L J 658
- Ss.193-A & 194---Review---Scope---No court much less the Tribunal having the special and
limited jurisdiction possesses the inherent power to review its order unless this power is expressly
granted by the statue.
2010 PTD 1418 Customs,
Federal Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal
- In order to enforce law of the land and to enable alleged abductee and her second
husband/accused, to lead peaceful matrimonial life of their choice, it was fully justified to exercise
constitutional jurisdiction and inherent powers by High Court, in their favour. Such an action by the
High Court would not amount to interference in the allotted sphere of investigating agency,
prosecution and trial court because the three organs of administration of justice had stepped over
their respective authority.
Lal Khan
Versus
Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Jhang.
2010 P Cr. L J 182
- High Court keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the
technicalities of law, taking into consideration the welfare of the minor, ordered, in exercise of its
inherent jurisdiction, that the custody of minor son be handed over to the petitioner/mother who was
entitled to retain her custody---Interim custody of the minor son was delivered to the petitioner
(mother).
Mst. Sana Parvaiz
Versus
Muhammad Sajawal Butt
2010 MLD 143
- When the election laws are not providing any remedial steps, the High court has got inherent and
constitutional powers to remedy the wrong being done or having been done by the Election Tribunal-
--High court, therefore, has got power and jurisdiction in such circumstances to invoke its said power
to do justice---Principles.
Federation of Pakistan
Versus
Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif
2009 PLD 284
Supreme-Court
- Inherent jurisdiction of court, source of---Every court, in absence of any express provision, would
be deemed to possess in its very constitution all such powers, which would be necessary to do right
and undo a wrong in the course of administration of justice.
Sued Fakhar Imam
Versus
Muhammad Raza Hayat Miraj
2009 CLC 1
Punjab Election Tribunal
- Where a forum has power to grant the final relief, it has inherent power to grant any interim relief,
vice versa, where the forum itself does not have power to grant the final relief, it shall have no
power even to grant interim relief.
Muhammad Nawaz
Versus
Ghulam Mustafa Ansari
2009 PLD 467

Code of Criminal Procedure Sections Explained

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Code of Criminal Procedure Sections Explained

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

SECTIONS 2, 177, 179 & 180 CR.P.C.

SECTION 63 & 173 CR.P.C

- S. 190---Powers of Magistrates of First Class---All Magistrates of the First Class, were

- Ss.491 & 561-A---Habeas Corpus Petition---Maintainability---Custody of minors---Cases

- Attempt to commit qatl-e-amd---Quashing of F.I.R.---Plea of alibi raised by the petitioner could

Вам также может понравиться