| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1958 SLG 4022 = 1958 SLD 4022 = 1958 PLD 14 |
West Pakistan
Criminal Revision Nos. 66 and 68 of 1957/BWP. decided on 19tH November 1957, from reference made by the Additional District Magistrate, Bahawalpur, dated 14th October 1957 for quashing the order of Magistrate 1st Class, Hasilpur, dated 4th June 1957.
Presented By:SHABIR AHMAD, J
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 200 & 356 -Complaint-Procedure to be followed-Provisions of S. 356 whether to be complied with when recording statement of com plainant-Non-compliance whether has any effect. When a complaint is lodged before a Magistrate the procedure to be followed is detailed in Chapter XVI of the Criminal P. C. Section 200 of the Code, lays down that when a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence on complaint he shall at once examine the complainant on oath and the substance of the examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and also by the Magistrate, but does not lay down that the examination of the complainant is to be reduced to writing by the Magistrate himself. Nor is there any provision in Chapter XVI of the Code which enjoins on the Magistrate the duty of recording the statements of the witnesses which the complainant wants to produce in support of his case in accordance with the provisions of section 356 of the Code. Therefore though it is desirable that a Magistrate should himself record the statement of the complainant and of his witnesses in proceedings under Chapter XVI of the Criminal P. C. mere non-compliance with section 356 of the Code in proceedings under that Chapter does not vitiate the proceedings of the Magistrate. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 438 & 200 ---Statement of complainant before Magistrate tallying ill all material respects with the complaint-Whether a ground for quashing proceedings. The mere fact that the statement of the complainant before the Magistrate tallies, in all material respects with the complaint lodged by him, is no proof that the statement was not taken in the manner in which it is shown to have been recorded by the Magistrate and in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary it is not a sufficient ground for quashing the proceedings before the Magistrate. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 526 (3)- Transfer of case-Record showing that Magistrate Wiled warrants in undue taste-High Court can suo Motu transfer case to another Magistrate. Iqbal Hussain petitioner in person. Irshad Hussain respondent absent though served. Muhammad Salim Aslam Pirzada for the State.
Criminal Revision Nos. 66 and 68 of 1957/BWP. decided on 19tH November 1957, from reference made by the Additional District Magistrate, Bahawalpur, dated 14th October 1957 for quashing the order of Magistrate 1st Class, Hasilpur, dated 4th June 1957.
Presented By:SHABIR AHMAD, J
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 200 & 356 -Complaint-Procedure to be followed-Provisions of S. 356 whether to be complied with when recording statement of com plainant-Non-compliance whether has any effect. When a complaint is lodged before a Magistrate the procedure to be followed is detailed in Chapter XVI of the Criminal P. C. Section 200 of the Code, lays down that when a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence on complaint he shall at once examine the complainant on oath and the substance of the examination shall be reduced to writing and shall be signed by the complainant and also by the Magistrate, but does not lay down that the examination of the complainant is to be reduced to writing by the Magistrate himself. Nor is there any provision in Chapter XVI of the Code which enjoins on the Magistrate the duty of recording the statements of the witnesses which the complainant wants to produce in support of his case in accordance with the provisions of section 356 of the Code. Therefore though it is desirable that a Magistrate should himself record the statement of the complainant and of his witnesses in proceedings under Chapter XVI of the Criminal P. C. mere non-compliance with section 356 of the Code in proceedings under that Chapter does not vitiate the proceedings of the Magistrate. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 438 & 200 ---Statement of complainant before Magistrate tallying ill all material respects with the complaint-Whether a ground for quashing proceedings. The mere fact that the statement of the complainant before the Magistrate tallies, in all material respects with the complaint lodged by him, is no proof that the statement was not taken in the manner in which it is shown to have been recorded by the Magistrate and in the absence of definite evidence to the contrary it is not a sufficient ground for quashing the proceedings before the Magistrate. Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 526 (3)- Transfer of case-Record showing that Magistrate Wiled warrants in undue taste-High Court can suo Motu transfer case to another Magistrate. Iqbal Hussain petitioner in person. Irshad Hussain respondent absent though served. Muhammad Salim Aslam Pirzada for the State.
S. IQBAL HUSSAIN-Petitioner
VERSUS
S. IRSHAD HUSSAIN-Respondent AND S. IQBAL HUSSAIN-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ALI-Respondent
Law: Criminal Procedure Code, 1898
Section: 200,356,526
-ORDER SHABIR AHMAD, J.--- Irshad Hussain brought a complaint against Iqbal Hussain and others under section 506 of the P. P. C. on the 4th of June 1957, in the Court of Sayyed Zulfiqar Ahmad Shah Trimzey, Magistrate, Ist Class, Hasilpur. On the day when the complaint was put in the state ment of the complainant was recorded and bailable warrants for the arrest of the accused issued without taking any other evidence. Iqbal Hussain, who was one of the accused, moved the Additional District Magistrate for sending the case to this Court with a view to having the order summoning the accused quashed on the ground that it was passed without sufficient material on the record. Malik Abdur Rashid, Additional District Magistrate, Bahawalpur, went through the record and -has recommended that the proceedings before the Magistrate 1st Class, Hasilpur, be quashed on the following grounds :- that the Magistrate had not complied with the pro visions of section 356 of theCode of Criminal Procedure in so far as though the statement of the complainant was recorded not by the Magistrate himself but by his Reader the Magistrate had not made a memorandum of the substance of what the witnesses deposed, nor had lie recorded the reasons of his inability to record the state ment himself ; and that the statement alleged to have been made by the complainant was a verbatimcopy of the complaint which fact would show that the complainant had not made a state ment and the complaint put in by him had been copied out as his statement on oath. This recommendation of the learned Additional District Magistrate is before me as Criminal revision No, 66 of 1957 (BWP). On the 4th of July 1957, Muhammad Alt lodges a complaint in the Court of Mr.Trimzey, Magistrate 1st class, Hasilpur, with regard to an offence under section 506 cit the P. P-C. against Iqbal Hussain. The statement of the complainant in that case was also recorded on the day that the complaint was put in and bailable warrants for the arrest of lqbal Hussain issued the same day without any other evidence being taken. Iqbal Hussain put in a petition in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate,…