P L D 1985 Supreme Court 435 (PLP)
ISHFAQ AHMAD-Petitioner Versus THE STATE - Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1985 Supreme Court 435 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | ISHFAQ AHMAD-Petitioner Versus THE STATE - Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1985 Supreme Court 435 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1985 Supreme Court 435 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1985 Supreme Court 435 (PLP) (ISHFAQ AHMAD-Petitioner Versus THE STATE - Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Nawaz Kasuri, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate- on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 24th June, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, dated 23-4-1985, in Cr. M. No. 917-Q of 1985-Bwp.) (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) -- Art. 185(3)-Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 561-A & 195 -Penal Code (XLV of. 1860), Ss. 1821211, 447/506 & 147Leave to appeal granted to -examine argument that High Court had failed to keep in mind mischief saugrt to be suppressed by provisions of S. 195, Cr. P. C. that cognizance of offence mentioned therein should not be taken except on a written complaint filed by public servant concerned i.e. public servant who had been approached by person moving machinery of law. Malik Muhammad Sadiq v. The State. 1977. P Cr. L J 445-ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) -- Art. 185(3)-Practice-No decision on a question of law by Supreme Court existing-Leave to appeal $ran-ed so that an authoritative pronouncement may be made thereon-Proceedings against petitioner, however, were stayed meanwhile.-Supreme Court, practice]. S. M. Zubair, Addl. A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-Facts giving rise to the petition are, briefly, that Mr. Ashfaq Ahmad Cheema (petitioner herein) approached Assistant Commissioner, Ahmedpur East, with a complaint against some persons including a police officer, for offence under sections 447/506 and 147, P. P. C. Probably he had to resort to this course because the police had refused to register a case against a police officer. However on his complaint the Assistant Commissioner, directed the police at Police Station . Ahmedpur East to register the case against the accused, which was accordingly registered. After investigation the S. H. O. Ahmedpur East is stated to have come to the conclusion that the allegations made by the petitioner were false. The S. H. O. therefore initiated proceedings under section 182/211, P. P. C. against the petitioner. He also filed a private complaint against the same persons, in the Court of Assistant Commissioner on the same facts who, we are informed, has summoned the accused persons named therein. The petitioner also filed au application under section 561.-A, Cr. P. C. before the High-Court for quashment of the proceedings under section 1&2,/211., P. P. C. initiated against him by S. H. O. Ahmadpur East, on the ground that the said complaint is violative of section 195(1)(a), which reads as follows : "
195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority, of public servants-Prosecution for certain offences against public justice Prosecution for certain offences relating to documents given in evidence (1) No Court shall take cognizance (a) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 190 of the Pakistan Penal Code. except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate ; (b) . (c) . . . .
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, relied on Malik Muhammad Sadiq v. The State (1977 P Cr. L J 445), to argue that the learned High Court had failed to keep in mind the mischief sought to be suppressed by the provisions of section 195, Cr. P. C. that cognizance of the offence mentioned therein should not be taken except on a written complaint filed by the public servant concerned, i.e. the Public Servant who has been approached by the person moving the machinery of law, who in this case, according to petitioner, was the Assistant Commissioner and not the S: H. O.
3. Since-there is no decision of this Court on this question we] grant leave so that an authoritative pronouncement may be made thereon.' Proceedings under section 182/211, P. P. C. against the petitioner shall, however, remain stayed in the mean. while. M. B. A. Leave granted.