Case Details

Citation(s)
1974 SLG 3055 = 1974 SLD 3055 = 1974 PLD 245
Lahore High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2264/M of 1972, decided on 20th December 1973.
Presented By: Ataullah Sajjad, J
Nur Elahi v. The State P L D 1966 S C 708 and Medichetty Ramakistiah and others v. The State of Andhra Pradesh A I R 1959 Andh. Pra. 659 ref. Hyder Bux Jafferi v. The Crown P L D 1951 Sind 29 and Malik Asad Khan v. The State 1969 P Cr. L J 1048 fol. Wastm Sajjad for Petitioner. Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Inayatullah Cheema and Shahzad Azum Khan for D. M. A wan for the State.

ZAFARULLAH-Petitioner

VERSUS

THE STATE-Respondent

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 492, 495

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)  Ss. 492 & 495-Special Public Prosecutor, appointment of-Police challan and private complaint in respect of same charge-Appointment of complainant's counsel as Special Public Prosecutor objected to by accused on ground of counsel being deeply involved with complainant party-Principle of such appointment, held, against best traditions of criminal Courts-Justice should not only be done but must also appear to be done----Accused's objection to such appointment, held, should be respected. On principle the appointment of a private complainants' counsel as Special Public Prosecutor is against the best traditions of the criminal Courts of this country, especially, when an accused person had objected to his appointment. When an accused person raises objection to the appointment of a private counsel as a Special Public Prosecutor, his wishes have to be respected in the larger interest of the administration of justice and in deference to the oft-repeated, but scrupulously followed maxim that justice should not only be done but appear to be done.                                                                                                                  ORDER [18-10-1969]-An F. I. R. was registered at Police Station Isakhel on 3rd of February 1970, under sections 148, 302/149, P. P. C. in which six persons were mentioned as culprits. The police found that out of the six accused, five had not participated in the commission of the offence. Ata Muhammad and Shafa Muhammad were got discharged by a Magistrate and the names of other three i.e. Zafarullah, Raza Muhammad and Muhammad Ramzan were mentioned in column No. 2. Challan was filed only against Khan Muhammad. Faiz Muhammad Khan complainant filed a complaint against the five persons who had been found innocent by the police. The learned Magistrate who conducted the inquiry in this…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register