| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2000 SLG 646 2000 SLD 646 = 2000 PLD 12 |
Balochistan High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.4 and CriminalRevision No.4 of 1998, decision dated: 26-03-1999, hearingDATE : 19-03-1999.
MUHAMMAD, JAVED IQBAL, JUSTICE
Mrs. Iqbal Bano for Applicant.Imran ul Haq for the State.
Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.4 and CriminalRevision No.4 of 1998, decision dated: 26-03-1999, hearingDATE : 19-03-1999.
MUHAMMAD, JAVED IQBAL, JUSTICE
Mrs. Iqbal Bano for Applicant.Imran ul Haq for the State.
MST: MARIAM SULTANA --ApplicantVSTHE STATE --Respondent
Law: Governor-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
Section: 173, 200 & 203, 190(1)(3) & 202
Law: Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Section: 302
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) Ss. 190(1)(3) & 202 Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302 Filing complaint directly before Sessions Court Effect Sessions Court could not take cognizance of a complaint filed directly which should first be filed before Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction Magistrate had to take cognizance under S.190(3), Cr.P.C., not for commencing the trial, but in order to ascertain as to whether case was one which required to be sent for trial to court of Session or was one which he could proceed to try himself �Where a private complaint under S.302, P.P.C., was filed directly before Sessions Judge, he should return same for prosecution to a Magistrate and Sessions Judge could take cognizance on report of Magistrate under 5.202, Cr.P.C. Sessions Judge before whom complaint was directly filed referred same to Additional Sessions Judge who sent same for further enquiry to Judicial Magistrate under 5.202, Cr.P.C. Validity Procedure adopted by Sessions Judge, was not strictly in accordance with law, but since no prejudice, whatever, had been caused to any one, irregularity could be ignored.1984 PCr.LJ 1373 and PLD 1984 SC 29 ref.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) Ss. 173, 200 & 203 Police report and private complaint Distinction �Police report required to be filed under S.173, Cr.P.C., was different to that of private complaint and it was not interchangeable Complaint could not be said to have been legally disposed of by taking no action thereon in view of Police report without any order thereon or by promptly passing orders without examining complainant and without following procedure laid down.AIR 1929 Mad. 849; PLD 1983 FSC 497 and PLD 1983 FSC 497 ref.(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) S. 193 Cognizance of offence by Court of Session Provisions of S.193, Cr.P.C., had imposed an embargo upon a Court of Session to take cognizance of any offence unless accused had been sent to said Court of Session by a Magistrate duly empowered in that behalf Enquiry report conducted by Magistrate, was not binding on the Sessions Judge and Sessions Judge could take any view as could be deemed fit and proper in…