Case Details

Citation(s)
2007 SLG 2970 2007 SLD 2970 2007 PLD 489
Sindh High Court
Criminal Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 22, 31, 33, and 6 of 2007, decided on 23rd-May, 2007., DATE of hearing: 17th May, 2007
MUNIB AHMAD KHAN, J
Ali Nawaz Ghamghro for Applicant (Cr.M.A. No. 22 of 2007). Nemo for
Respondents (Cr.M.A. No. 22 of 2007). Muhammad Ismail Bhutto for the State (Cr.M.A. No. 22 of 2007). Ali Nawaz Ghanghro for Applicants (Cr.M.A. No. 31 of 2007). Muhammad Ismail Bhutto

BASHIR AHMED and others--Applicants

VS

ABDUL AZIZ and 7 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 190---Cognizance of offences by Magistrate---Contention that Magistrate could not take cognizance of case of which trial was not available with him, was totally misconceived---Expression "any offence" occurring in S.190(1), Cr.P.C. gave unfettered powers to the Magistrate to deal with any case for the purpose of their cognizance on police report, irrespective of section of law mentioned in the F.I.R.---Difference between "cognizance" and "trial" had also been pointed out in S.190, Cr.P.C. and subsection (1) of the section was limited to the extent of "cognizance", and when the Magistrate, after taking the cognizance, was of the opinion that the gist of accusation was triable by Sessions Court, then he would resort to subsection (2) of S.190, Cr.P.C. and would send the papers to Sessions Court, but without recording evidence. (b) Words and phrases--- ----"Cognizance", defined and explained. (c) Criminal 1rocedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 190---Cognizance of offence by Magistrate---No restriction under S.190, Cr.P.C. existed on the Magistrate to take cognizance/notice of any case---No procedure- was defined under S.190, Cr.P.C. as to what mode of scrutiny was to be adopted by the Magistrate towards sorting out the version of the police---Magistrate had to act according to his wisdom and judicial acumen which could differ in each. case---Towards the assessment and scrutiny of police version, Magistrate, however could interrogate the witnesses for the purpose of authentication of their version which the police claimed that it had been given by them and could also be taken on account of other documents submitted by police e.g., pendency of civil litigation or counter cases etc.---Magistrate, however could not record evidence. of, witnesses or of the complainant nor could examine defence witnesses as that would amount to initiation of trial which was not permitted under the law, because if such a situation was allowed, then formation of opinion' by the Magistrate after such an exercise, would amount to and that would affect the trial of accused; which could be conducted by another Magistrate or by Sessions Court if…
🔒
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