Case Details

Citation(s)
2005 SLG 2814 2005 SLD 2814 2005 PCRLJ 261
Federal Shariat Court
Criminal Revision No. 17 K of 2000, decided on 23rd August, 2004. Date of hearing: 23rd August, 2004.
SAEED UR REHMAN FARRUKH, JUSTICE
Imam Bakhsh Baloch for Petitioner. Amir Malik for
Respondents. Muhammad Arshad Lodhi, A.A.G. Sindh for the State.

MUHAMMAD SALEEM ER

VS

ZAFAR WARAICH AND 7 OTHERS --RespondentS

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 200,202,190(2),435,439,537

Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

Section: 427/504/506

Law: Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hadd) Ordinance, 1979

Section: 17(3)

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) Ss. 200, 202, 190(2), 435, 439 & 537 Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.427/504/506 Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), S.17(3) Complaint case Dismissal of complaint Complaint was filed by complainant before Judicial Magistrate, but same was forwarded by Magistrate to Sessions Judge as Offence under S.17(3) of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was exclusively triable by Sessions Court ¬Additional Sessions Judge to whom complaint was entrusted by Sessions Judge, proceeded to record statement of complainant under S.200, Cr.P.C. and sent complaint back to Judicial Magistrate for further inquiry who, after conducting some proceedings, placed matter before Additional Sessions Judge who passed an order directing accused in complaint case to appear before him and "assign reasons" as to why complaint filed by complainant against them should not be brought on record and registered against them Said accused appeared and filed their objections in writing and ultimately complaint was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge Validity Under provisions of S.202, Cr.P.C. Trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge) till such time it was satisfied with the result of inquiry conducted by Judicial Magistrate, could not have summoned accused to appear before him in any capacity whatsoever and it was wholly illegal on part of Additional Sessions Judge to call upon respondent/alleged accused during course of inquiry under S.202, Cr.P.C. to join proceedings so as to provide them an opportunity to raise objections qua the complaint in which they were arrayed as accused Mode of disposal of case adopted by Additional Sessions Judge would amount to mini trial which was not contemplated/permitted bylaw Impugned order was not sustainable in law and could not be termed to be mere illegality curable under S.537, Cr.P.C. Accepting revisions impugned order was set aside and complaint of petitioner/complainant was to be deemed pending as Trial Judge had already held inquiry under S.202, Cr.P.C., he would take note of same and after excluding from consideration the objections filed by…
🔒
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