Case Details

Citation(s)
1973 SLG 3116 = 1973 SLD 3116 = 1973 PCRLJ 882
Lahore High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 492/T of 1972, decided on 5th February 1973.
Presented By: Shamim Hussain Kadri, J
K. H. Khurshid for Petitioner. Raja Muhammad Anwar for
Respondents. Khuda Dad Barki for the State.

MUHAMMAD ANWAR ---Pettioner

VERSUS

Sheikh QURBAN ALI AND 3 OTHERS---Petitioner

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 176, 526, 307

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 176---Inquiry into causes of death of person in custody of police---A judicial proceedings. [Piara Singh v. The State and another A I R 1958 Pb. 430 dissented from]. Piara Singh v. The State and another A I R 1958 dissented from. In re : Laxminarayan Timmanna Karki A I R 1928 and Advocate-General v. Maung Chit Maung and another A I R 1940 Rang. 68 ref. Khuda Bakhah v. Province of West Pakistan and another P L D 1957 Lah. 662 rel. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 526-Transfer criminal cases-Magistrate acting In manner giving semblance of Idea of his not proceeding in accordance with low-Inquiries, particularly inquiry on complaint under S. 307 entrusted to him--Case transferred.                                                                                                                                   ORDER There are two applications ft the Code of Criminal Procedure, tiled by Muhammad Anwar petitioner in two matters pending before Raja Muhammad Akram Magistrate Ist Class, Jhelum, one an inquiry under section 302, P. P. C. on a complaint filed by the petitioner, and other an' inquiry entrusted to him by the District Magistrate under section 176, Cr. P. C. Both these petitions are disposed of this order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that it is alleged Ghulam Mustafa, brother-in-law of the petitioner, was a claimed offender. He, during his arrest was injured, and, on, killed by Qurban Ali Sub-Inspector of Dina. 3. In the inquiry which is proceeding under section before him it is alleged that the learned Magistrate did not take into possession the revolver allegedly used, as a weapon of offence of seven days after the alleged commission of the crime and he has also failed to take into possession the car in which tote deceased was done to death. There was an allegation that the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register