Case Details

Citation(s)
1979 SLG 103 1979 SLD 103 1979 PLD 31
Sindh High Court
Criminal Revision Application No. 193 of 1977, decided on 2nd September 1978. Date of hearing: 20th August 1978.
ABDUL HAYEE KURESHI, J
Muhammad Ali Shaikh for Petitioner. Abbas H. Farooqui for the State.

MUHAMMAD ISMAIL --Applicant

VS

Tam STATE --Respondent

Law:

Section:

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 103 Search Police Officer at time of search should be accompanied by two respectable persons other than Police Officers Provision of S. 103 designed to create safeguard against possible chicanery and concoction on part of Investigation Officer Violation of such provision cannot be lightly countenanced. [Search Investigating Officer]. On a plain reading of section 103, Cr. P. C. it would appear that the intention of the law makers was that the police officers at the time of search should be accompanied by two persons who should be other than police officers. When the law makes a provision the Courts cannot relieve public functionaries of the obligations on ad hoc and sweeping considerations that no one in the locality would be prepared to serve as a mashir or that if he would be so prepared he would be branded as a witness under influence of police. Each case depends on its own merits. Section 103, Cr. P. C. itself insists on respectable persons being called and there can be no doubt that respectable persons are available in every locality and they can easily be chosen by the police. Provisions of this nature are designed to create a safeguard against possible chicanery and concoction on the part of investigating officer and by allowing such provisions to be violated one is likely only to put a premium on possible false implication. Such a position cannot be lightly countenanced. Debi Das v. King Emperor A I R 1921 Pat. 508; 7 Cr. L J 479; Aung Sein v. The King A I R 1941 Rang. 333; Gur Prasad v. Gur Prasad and others A I R 1944 Oudh 321; Meld v. The State P L D 1962 Lah, 58; Sardar All v. The State P L D 1964 Lah. 386; Muhammad Khan v. Dost Muhammad and others P L D 1975 S C 607; Mumtaz Ahmed v. The State 1974 P Cr. L. J 137; Sardar Ali v. The State P L D 1964 Lah. 386 and Abdar Rashid v. The State 1975 P Cr. L J 565 ref. JUDGMENT The facts leading to the present revision application may be briefly stated as follows: 1. S. H. O. Muhammad Yakoob of Khanpur Police Station received information that the applicant was in possession of unlicensed arms. On 6 12 1975 this police officer went out with a police party consisting of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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