| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2001 SLG 2689 2001 SLD 2689 2001 PLD 271 |
Lahore High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 25-Q of 2001, decided on 10th April, 2001
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J
Ch. Faqir Muhammad for Petitioner. Muhammad Qasim Khan, Asstt. A.G. for
Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Sardar Muhammad Sarfaraz Dogar for
Respondent No. 3. Muhammad Riaz Aura for the State
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 25-Q of 2001, decided on 10th April, 2001
ASIF SAEED KHAN KHOSA, J
Ch. Faqir Muhammad for Petitioner. Muhammad Qasim Khan, Asstt. A.G. for
Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Sardar Muhammad Sarfaraz Dogar for
Respondent No. 3. Muhammad Riaz Aura for the State
ASHIQ HUSSAIN
VS
SESSIONS JUDGE, LODHRAN and 3 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 63 & 173---Discharge of accused by the Magistrate---Meaning and scope---Understanding, notion and impression that discharge of an accused person in a criminal case meant that further investigation qua him or his prosecution for the reported crime had come to an end, he had finally been absolved of the allegations with his discharge virtually having the effect of an acquittal and because of such a consequence of an order of discharge, such a discharge could be ordered only by the Court competent to try the offence in question and not by a Magistrate if he otherwise lacked jurisdiction to try the relevant offence, were misplaced and misconceived. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----S. 377---Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, (VII of 1979), S.12---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), Ss. 12 & 17---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 63, 167 & 344---Remand or discharge of the accused---Jurisdiction---Offence under S.12, Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 was admittedly not included in the Schedule appended with the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 whereas an offence under S.377, P.P.C. was a scheduled offence only "if the victim was below the age of twelve years and committed after the commencement of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997"---Occurrence though had allegedly taken place after the commencement of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 yet the age of the victim in the case being below twelve years at the relevant time was an asserted fact which was far from being established so far---Effect---Held, in the absence of any conclusive proof to the effect that the victim was definitely "below the age of twelve years" at the time of the alleged occurrence the Magistrate was not expected to readily abdicate his normal jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 regarding remand or discharge and to advise the parties to approach in that respect a Special Court the jurisdiction of which vis-a-vis the present case was still dependant upon a fact which was far from being admitted or established---As long as jurisdictional facts, prima facie, ousting the jurisdiction of Magistrate in…
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