Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 2992 2006 SLD 2992 2006 PLD 302
Sindh High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 64, 72 and 85 of 2005, decided on 9th December, 2005. dates of hearing: 12th, 26th September and 14th November, 2005
SARMAD, JALAL OSMANY, J
Ghulam Shabir Shar for the Applicant/Complainant, Mr. Zuber Ahmed Rajput for the Accused and Muhammad Iqbal Memon for the State (in Cr.M.A. No. 64 of 2005). Aziz Ahmed Khuwaja for the Applicant/Complainant, Liaqat Ali Sher for the Accused and Muhammad Iqb

HAKIM ALI, SIP and 7 others

VS

THE STATE and 2 others

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 190,173,174,190(2)

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 190, 173 & 174---Applications challenging powers of Magistrate to take cognizance of offences---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---Validity---Magistrate, while exercising jurisdiction under S.190, Cr.P.C., would act in an administrative capacity and would not function in a judicial manner and he was only to apply his mind to the material presented before him and thereafter he would decide whether he should take cognizance of the matter or not---If he decided to take cognizance in a case triable by him, then he should pass a speaking order after a fair assessment of such material and then proceed to try the case himself, if he accepted the police report or otherwise to discharge accused where he did not agree with the same---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---Magistrates of First Class, were empowered to take cognizance of any offence and per S.190(2), Cr.P.C., a Magistrate in case of an offence triable exclusively by a Court of Session, would, without recording any evidence, send case to such Court for trial---Enquiry to be conducted by Magistrate would also include an exercise to determine whether or not accused were to be sent up for trial in a Sessions case, which would mean that he must pass a reasonable order after…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492