Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 1139 2018 SLD 1139 2018 PCRLJ 771
Sindh High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 260 to 273 of 2010, decision Dated: 24 05-2017, hearing Date : 17 05-2017.
SYED MUHAMMAD FAROOQ SHAH, JUSTICE
Sameer Ghazanfar for Applicant. Mudassar Ahmed for
Respondent. Abrar Ali Kachi, Assistant Prosecutor-General, Sindh for the State.

TARIQ JAVED

VS

HOM PURKASH AND 3 OTHERS

Law:

Section:

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 203, 200 & 190---Dismissal of complaint---Trial Court dismissed the complaint mainly on the ground that the photocopy of Notification in the shape of true copy was inadmissible in evidence---Said orders were maintained by the revisional court---Validity---Admittedly, the complaint was dismissed at the very inception without recording the statement of the complainant under S. 200, Cr.P.C., which stipulated that a Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence on complaint should at once examine the complainant upon oath---Substance of the examination should be reduced to writing and should be signed by the complainant and also by the Magistrate---Section 203, Cr.P.C. empowered the Magistrate before whom a complaint was made or to whom it was transferred or sent, may dismiss the same after considering the statement on oath of the complainant and the result of investigation---Magistrate had not adopted the proper mechanism provided by the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 while dismissing the complaint---Magistrate, on receiving a complaint, would take the cognizance thereof under S. 190(a), Cr.P.C. and thereafter it was incumbent upon him to examine the complainant under S. 200, Cr.P.C.---Inquiry or investigation thereafter, would be ordered to be conducted under S. 202, Cr.P.C.---In the present case, original Notification in favour of the complainant which had authorized the complainant to file complaint, was not annexed---Trial Court could have summoned the original record or direct the complainant to produce the original Notification instead of dismissing the complaint---Notification annexed with the complaint was not objected to by the other side nor was challenged at the preliminary stage of the complaint---Objection as to the admissibility of document was to be raised during its production by the complainant---Statement of the complainant having not been recorded, therefore it could not be said that complainant did not possess the original document to produce at the time of recording his statement---Circumstances established that impugned orders of the Trial Court and revisional court were not…
🔒
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