| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 6159 2024 SLD 6159 = 2024 PCRLJ 1168 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 18561 of 2021, decided on 12th April, 2023.
Before Tariq Saleem Sheikh, J.
Zafar Iqbal Chohan, assisted by Rashid Amin and Qamar Abbas Duggal for Petitioner. Mukhtar Ahmad Ranjha, Additional Advocate General and Rana Tasawar Ali Khan, Deputy Prosecutor General, with Prof. Dr. Arif Rasheed Malik, Surgeon MedicoLegal Punjab, Lahore and Farrukh/SI for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 3. Rai Bashir Ahmad assisted by Shahid Ali for
Respondents Nos. 2 and 4-6. Amicus curiae: Barrister Haider Rasul Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court.
Writ Petition No. 18561 of 2021, decided on 12th April, 2023.
Before Tariq Saleem Sheikh, J.
Zafar Iqbal Chohan, assisted by Rashid Amin and Qamar Abbas Duggal for Petitioner. Mukhtar Ahmad Ranjha, Additional Advocate General and Rana Tasawar Ali Khan, Deputy Prosecutor General, with Prof. Dr. Arif Rasheed Malik, Surgeon MedicoLegal Punjab, Lahore and Farrukh/SI for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 3. Rai Bashir Ahmad assisted by Shahid Ali for
Respondents Nos. 2 and 4-6. Amicus curiae: Barrister Haider Rasul Mirza, Advocate Supreme Court.
ZUBAIDA KHANUM---Petitioner
VERSUS
DISTRICT POLICE OFFICER and 15 others---Respondents
Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 22A(6)(3)
Law: Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997
Section: 9(c)
Law: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 324,353,186,337H(2),148,149
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S. 22-A(6) (3)---Ex-officio Justice of Peace, powers of---Scope---Petitioner preferred application under S.22-A, subsection (6) sub-clause (3), Cr.P.C., against Police Officials with regard to action against illegal act and for recording crossversion---Police Officials alleged that son of petitioner was apprehended while selling narcotic's and 4180 grams of charas, scale and wattak amount of Rs. 5700/were recovered from his possession; that meanwhile brother of accused and others equipped with lethal weapons arrived, opened fire on the police officials, thus FIR under S.9(c) of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and under Ss.324, 353, 186, 337-H(2), 148 & 149, P.P.C was registered---Petitioner contended in her petition that Police Officials forcibly entered her house and ransacked it; sons of petitioner tried to stop them, but they beat them; and Police Officials stole cash amounting to Rs. 30,000/- and gold jewellery from her house---Ex-officio Justice of Peace issued direction to the District Police Officer to inquire into the matter himself or through a senior Police Officer and proceed under the law---SDPO submitted report against the version of the petitioner---Validity---Occurrence mentioned in the petitioner's application under S.22-A(6) Cr.P.C., was manifestly a cross-version of FIR registered by police---Anyhow, it could not be considered as information of a different incident regarding the commission of a cognizable offence that would warrant registering a separate FIR---Police FIR was registered under S.9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and Ss. 324, 353, 186, 337H(2), 148 & 149, P.P.C---Prosecution was required to submit two challans in the case, one under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and the other under P.P.C, because they were triable by separate Courts---Trial Court tried accused for the offence under S.9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and acquitted him---If Police FIR had only been under the said offence, petition might have been dismissed right away---Court would have refused the petitioner relief even though she promptly approached the…