| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1977 SLG 1794 1977 SLD 1794 1977 PCRLJ 176 |
Sindh High Court
Criminal Revision Application No. 209 of 1973, 9th August, 1976
JAMALUDDIN H. AHMED, J
M. M. K. A. Zai, Advocate
Criminal Revision Application No. 209 of 1973, 9th August, 1976
JAMALUDDIN H. AHMED, J
M. M. K. A. Zai, Advocate
M. M. K. A. Zai, Advocate
VS
The State And 3 Others
Law:
Section:
Keywords: Precedent, Plea, Government, Place, Substitution, Investigation, Public Servant, Order, Provisions, Evidence, Receipt, Assessors, Proceedings, Impugned Order, Procedure, Petitioner, Cognizance, Public Servants, Remedy, Objections, Magistrate, Interference, Prosecution, Jurisdiction, Offences, Prosecutor, Notification, Condition Precedent, High Court, Private Complaint,, Examination, Revisional Jurisdiction, Grounds, Prima Facie, Consideration, Recording, Competent Authority Result: Petition dismissed JUDGMENT This Revision Application has been filed by Mr. M. M. K. A. Zai him self a practising lawyer who on 16-10-1973 had filed a direct complaint under sections 380, 409, 4'65 and 566, P. P. C. Against the respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4, in the Court of Special Judge (Central), Karachi (Mr. Qadeer Muhammad Kureshi) which he dismissed. The applicant was an accused person before respondent Sayed Captain Iftikhar Hussain (then Special Judge) in Case No. 73/65, and his main allegations were that the original challan from the file of that Court and had planted some other challan in its place. This had been done as Captain Iftikhar Hussain had framed a substance of accusation, which was different from the original facts of that case and the challan had necessarily to be substituted to bring it in con formity with the same. 2. The Special Judge on receiving the above-stated complaint, ordered that statement of the applicant/complainant be recorded under section 200 of the Cr. P. C., but the latter, on 20-10-73 filed his objections against this order stating that under proviso I of section 6 (5) of Criminal Law (Amend ment) Act, 1958, and also as held in the case of Ainuddin v. State (P L D 1962 Kar. 738) there was no provision in the said Act for recording of statement of a complainant. The only course open to the Special Judge was to address a letter to the appropriate Government for sanction for prosecution of the Public Servant shown as accused. The Special Judge, however, disregarded his objections and recorded his statement on oath, whereafter on 22-10-1973 he dismissed the complaint filed by the applicant by an order purporting to have been passed under…
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