| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1953 SLG 168 1953 SLD 168 1953 PLD 8 |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Criminal Revision Application No. 2 of 1953, decided on 22nd February 1953, against the order of District Magistrate, Muzaffarabad dated the 15th November 1952.
ABDUL MAJID, C.J.
Muhammad Shafi for Petitioner.
Criminal Revision Application No. 2 of 1953, decided on 22nd February 1953, against the order of District Magistrate, Muzaffarabad dated the 15th November 1952.
ABDUL MAJID, C.J.
Muhammad Shafi for Petitioner.
GHULAM DIN ASH ALer
VS
Syed ZAINUL ABDIN--Respondent
Law:
Section:
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 197, 439-Accused a Prosecuting D. S. P. Without putting up appearance before Magistrate, applying in revision to High Court for quashing proceedings for wart of sanction --Revision premature. Where the accused a Prosecuting D. S. P. had not appeared on summons before the District Magistrate, but had applied in revision to the High Court for quashing proceedings for want of sanction under section 197, Cr. P. C. Held, the petition in revision is premature and the petitioner should apply to the District Magistrate that his trial is barred under section 197, Cr. P. C. and prove the facts necessary for it and if the order goes against him then he should move the sessions Judge or the High Court. ORDER ABDUL MAJID, C. J.-This is a petition in revision by Ghulam Din Ashai, Prosecuting Deputy Superintendent Police Muzaffarabad against an order of the District Magistrate, Muzaffarabad summoning him as an accused on the complaint brought by Syed Zain-ul-Abedin, Advocate against him and others under sections 342, 323, 222, 119, 166, 147 and 109, A.P. C. It is contended that the District Magistrate overlooked the provisions of section 197, Cr. P. C., in summoning the petitioner who is a Gazetted Officer of the Azad Kashmir Government without obtaining sanction of the Government for his prosecution as the offences alleged to have been committed by him in the complaint were committed if at all by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. The record of the District Magistrate shows that after examining the complainant, he was of opinion that the petitioner and Muhammad Hussain, Stab-Inspector Police should only be summoned out of the six persons named as accused to appear in his Court and to answer the complainant's allegations so far as these related to offences covered by sections 220, 323 and 342, A. P. C. The petitioner and Muhammad Hussain, Sub-Inspector did rot appear before the District Magistrate in response to the summons, bat avoided their service in one way or the other till the present petition was filed. The question is whether the petitioner has a right to challenge the order passed…
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