Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 1524 2006 SLD 1524 2006 PLD 316
Supreme Court of Pakistan
aCivil Petition No.507-L of 2005, decision dated: 8-03-2006. (On appeal from the order dated 23-2-2005 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petition No.16975 of 2004).
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY AND RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, JJ
S.M. Zameer Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmudul Islam, Advocate-on-Record.Mian Ghulam Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court with Fateh Khan, A.S.I. for the State.Nemo No. 2.Syed Zahid Hussain Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court with Haji M. Rafi Siddiqui, A

Syed MUHAMMAD AHMED-

VS

THE STATE and others Syed MUHAMMAD AHMED- vs THE STATE and others

Law:

Section:

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 420/467/468/471---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.4(1), 63, 173 & 190---Police Rules, 1934, R.24.7---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---High Court had directed that the petitioners before it in the constitutional petition who were accused persons in an F.I.R., would not be treated as accused and would not be challaned in the case, only because the Investigating Officer had informed the High Court that the involvement of the said accused persons in the case could not he established and that they had not forged any document or offered any kind of inducement to the complainant to secure any pecuniary benefit---Investigation according to S.4(1), Cr.P.C. only meant collection of evidence and no more---Determination of guilt or innocence of the accused persons was an obligation cast on the Courts of law which task could never be permitted to be delegated to the police officers investigating a case---Provisions of' S.63, Cr.P.C. had prohibited discharge of an accused person except under a special order of a 'Magistrate---Rule 24.7 of the Police Rules, 1934, had also prohibited cancellation of F.I.Rs without the orders of the Magistrate---Provisions of S.173, Cr.P.C. had provided only that after the available material had been collected by the S.H.O. during investigation, result of the same had to be reported to the Magistrate competent to take cognizance under S.190, Cr.P.C. and thereafter the Magistrate was to decide whether the accused did or did not deserve to be tried---Impugned order passed by High Court only on the alleged opinion of the Investigating Officer, therefore, was not sustainable and the same was set aside by converting the petition for leave to appeal into appeal which was allowed---S.H.O. was directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. ORDER KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.---We are pained to see the impugned order wherein the learned Judge in Chamber had directed that the petitioners before his Lordship who were the accused persons of F.I.R. No.218 of Police Station Khushab would "not be treated as accused and would not be challaned" in the said case only because some S.I./I.O.…
🔒
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