Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 2596 2014 SLD 2596 2014 YLR 1407
Sindh High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 155 of 2013, decided on 8th November, 2013. DATE of hearing: 8th October, 2013
HASAN FEROZ, J
Dr. Muhammad Farogh Naseem, Qazi Khalid Ali and Shaukat Hayat for Applicants. Abdullah Rajput A.P.G. along with I.O. for
Respondent

IFTIKHARULLAH KHAN and 8 others

VS

The STATE

Law:

Section:

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss.561-A & 173---Sindh Enquiries and Anti-Corruption Rules, 1994, R.4(c)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.217, 218, 409, 420, 468, 471 & 34---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Disobeying direction of law by public servant, framing incorrect record or writing by public servant, criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, forgery, using as genuine a forged document, common intention, corruption---Declining of the final report of prosecution for dropping the case---Quashing of order---Applicants/accused persons, had sought quashing of order whereby the Trial Court had declined the final report of prosecution under S.173, Cr.P.C. for dropping the criminal case against them---Fair assessment could not be made without considering the material available on record---Assessing the order passed by the Trial Court, required material which apparently had not come to the consideration of the court, which had declined the report under S.173, Cr.P.C. and ordered for issuance of process---Competent authority, had powers to drop the case after investigation on its own, or on the recommendation of Anti-Corruption Committee; in accordance with R.4(c) of Sindh Enquires and Anti-Corruption Rules, 1994---Recommendation seeking permission of competent authority to drop the case, seemed to have not been followed in the case---Since the material for dropping the case against accused persons, had not been fully brought before the Trial Court in the shape of final challan, in order to meet the ends of justice from being prejudiced, accused had prayed against order of registration of case against them---Powers though were vested with the competent authority to drop case, but it ought to be fair assessment and consideration of facts and evidence; and not in mechanical manner for which due diligence was prerequisite---Application was disposed of by the High Court with direction to Chief Secretary, being competent authority, to place material collect during investigation and re-investigation; and Trial Court was directed to pass order afresh on the basis of said…
🔒
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