| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1961 SLG 1968 1961 SLD 1968 = 1961 PLD 117 |
Peshawar High Court
Writ Petition No. 174 of 1959, decided on 5th May 1961.
Presented By: Abdul Aziz Khan, Abdul Hamid and S. A. Mahmood, JJ
Muhammad Aman Khan for Petitioner. Ghazanfar Ali Shah Bokhari, Assistant Advocate-General for
Respondent.
Writ Petition No. 174 of 1959, decided on 5th May 1961.
Presented By: Abdul Aziz Khan, Abdul Hamid and S. A. Mahmood, JJ
Muhammad Aman Khan for Petitioner. Ghazanfar Ali Shah Bokhari, Assistant Advocate-General for
Respondent.
SHER WALI AND OTHERS-Petitioners
VERSUS
THE STATE-Respondent
Law: Frontier Crimes Regulation (III of 1901)
Section:
(a) Frontier Crimes Regulation (III of 1901)----Ss. 11, 14, 15 Whether and when proceedings can be started under S. Il after an accused has been "discharged" after magisterial inquiry Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 209, 253, 403. Held, that the existence of an accusation which is to be enquired into is the essence and pre-requisite of the exercise of the power under section 11, Frontier Crimes Regulation, 1901. Having been discharged either under section 209 or 253, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 an accusation of an offence is no longer there against an accused person, for the time being. For the competency of an order under section 11, F. C. R. a subsirting accusation of the commission of an offence against a person is essential. For an order under section 14, F. C. R. to be validly made the case should be pending before a Magistrate or should have been committed to the Court of Session, but the trial should not have commenced, and for section 15, F. C. R., the trial should have been commenced in a Court of Session and the accused should not have been acquitted or convicted. An order of discharge of an accused is not a bar to his retrial, either by the same Court or by a Court of co-ordinate jurisdiction, as is clear from the Explanation to section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and from the decision in Emperor v. Kiru 11 I C 132, but the fact, that he is liable to be tried again does not mean that he is still under an accusation or is an accused person. He has stood an inquiry either under Chapter XVIII or under Chapter XXI, in which, he has succeeded in showing that the. accusation had no foundation, and has thus earned a dis charge. The order of discharge means that he is no longer under an accusation, though he could be brought under accusation again. The proviso to section 11 (3), F. C. R. is of no relevance to cases of discharge under the Code of Criminal Procedure, because it relates merely to an order of discharge under section 11 (3) (c), F. C. R., made on receipt of a finding of the Council of Elders, and cannot be used to infer that the person discharged still remains under…