Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 86A,497

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 86A,497

Law: Frontier Crimes Regulation (III of 1901)

Section: 8,11,20

Law: Police Order (22 of 2002)

Section: 155C

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ---S. 86-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Scope---Procedure for removal in custody to Tribal Areas---Magistrate, who was seized with the matter, was fully competent under S. 86-A, Cr. P. C. to record evidence and hear the parties on the matter, in the manner he would have done, if the original complaint had been filed before him---Magistrate would direct removal of the arrested person in custody only if he was satisfied with the evidence produced before him would give rise to a strong and powerful presumption that person arrested had committed the offence mentioned in the warrant---During the proceedings pending before the Magistrate he could even decide, whether the penal provisions mentioned in the warrant were rightly applied or not---Competent court being already seized with the matter, interference by High Court in constitutional jurisdiction was neither permissible nor warranted. PLD 1958 (W.P.) Lah. 1039; PLD 1958 (W.P.) Lah. 853; PLD 1957 (W.P.) Lah. 100; PLD 1975 SC 66 and PLD 1957 (W.P.) Quetta 1 rel. 1994 PCr.LJ 1984; PLD 1995 Pesh. 118; PLJ 1997 Pesh. 22 and Khizar Hayat v. I.G.P. PLD 2005 Lah. 470 ref. ORDER SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.---The learned counsel submits that respondent No.4, Haji Sher Zaman son of Elam Din filed a complaint before Assistant Political Agent (APA), South Waziristan alleging that in 1977 petitioner contacted respondent No.4 and agreed to act as a broker that he would sell buses of respondent No.4 to other people on the basis of commission. Respondent No.4 in 1998 appointed petitioner, Muhammad Abdullah as his agent to sell the vehicles on hire ­purchase basis and through instalments. The respondent No.4, authorized petitioner to retain commission in every deal. The respondent No.4 claimed that he paid a handsome amount to petitioner to deal with the customers. According to respondent No.4, petitioner came. to his native village in South Waziristan, where he was paid more money at different times in 1998 which comes in total Rs.18,85,000. Respondent No.4 further alleged that he paid Rs.11,60,000 to petitioner for purchasing and selling the…

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