| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2014 SLG 109 2014 SLD 109 2014 PLD 164 |
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. 1845 of 2013, decided on 20th October, 2013
FAISAL ARAB AND SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, JJ
Ghulamullah Chang for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents
Constitutional Petition No. 1845 of 2013, decided on 20th October, 2013
FAISAL ARAB AND SALAHUDDIN PANHWAR, JJ
Ghulamullah Chang for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents
WAJID ALI
VS
CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.1 and 5 others--Respondents
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 154,561-A
Law: Anti Terrorism Act, 1997
Section: 6,7
Law: Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
Section: 503,506
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 10A,199
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 154---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.10A & 199---Constitutional petition---Information in cognizable cases---Manner of reporting cognizable offence---Discretion of officer Incharge of Police Station---Scope---Administrative jurisdiction of the courts---Extent---No discretion had been left with the Officer Incharge of a Police Station to refuse or avoid exercise of mandatory jurisdiction under S.154, Cr.P.C.---Only condition was that information should spell out commission of a cognizable offence---Courts being the ultimate guardians of the rights of the individuals and in criminal justice system, courts enjoyed the status of the administrative authority, to have a check under constitutional jurisdiction---Such administrative jurisdiction, would not give a legal right and authority to curtail the powers of statutory functionary (Investigating Authorities); nor would mean to interfere in the independent functions of authorities provided by law; unless it surfaced that such exercise was patently contrary to the law, and was result of colourable exercise---Offence, would continue to be an offence even if not reported or no informant came forward---Incharge of Police Station was obliged to bring the law into motion, as soon as it came to his knowledge---Law nowhere demanded that before lodging F.I.R., there should be a prior permission---F.I.R. only would mean to bring the law into motion, so as to collect material, as to whether, in reality a cognizable offence was made out, which required its determination by a competent court of law---Administrative jurisdiction should only be exercised where subordinate functionary was found guilty of negligence in performing its functions, and not otherwise---F.I.R. could be lodged without hearing the proposed accused---Accused had been termed as "suspect", and such a suspect would have an undeniable right of a proper investigation---Domain and jurisdiction of the Police was to carry out the investigation and submit report under Chapter XIV of Cr.P.C.---High Court would not be legally justified in directing lodgement of the F.I.R. under particular provisions of…
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