2004 PLP 1350 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD IRSHAD — Petitioner Versus SESSIONS JUDGE, OKARA and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1350 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IRSHAD — Petitioner Versus SESSIONS JUDGE, OKARA and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1350 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1350 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1350 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD IRSHAD — Petitioner Versus SESSIONS JUDGE, OKARA and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Manzoor Hussain Basra, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehmud-ul-Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Riaz Loan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 25th March, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 20-1-2003 passed in Writ Petition No. 826 of 2003).
Ss. 337-A(i)/337-L(2)/34
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Sessions Court on complaint of the complainant against the Investigating Officer had stopped the investigation in the case and summoned the entire record
Constitutional petition filed by the accused assailing the said order was dismissed through the impugned order
Supreme e7ourt in view of the fact that challan had also been submitted in the Trial Court did not exercise discretion to grant leave to examine the question of further investigation of the case and directed the Trial Court to complete the trial and pronounce final judgment
Accused were allowed to produce before the Court all the evidence which they wanted to produce before the Investigating Officer
Leave to appeal was refused to accused with such observation.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.
The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment, dated 20-1-2003 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, through which Constitutional petition filed by him against the order, dated 3-12-2002 of the learned Sessions Judge (ex officio justice of peace) has been dismissed.
2. A case was registered against the petitioner under sections 337-A(i)/337-L-(2)/34, P.P.C. on the complaint of one Hussain at Police Station, Saddar Renala Khurd, Okara, investigation was conducted by an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police; Renala Khurd which was subsequently transferred and entrusted to a D.S.P. The complainant of the said case made an application under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C added through Amending Ordinance No. 131 of 2002 w.e.f. 21-1-2002 that the Police Officer to whom investigation had been transferred, was trying to save the neck of the accused persons by showing them favour by making favourable reports.
3. The learned Sessions Judge (ex officio justice of peace) after issuance of notice made an order that the D.S.P. to whom investigation was entrusted should stop the same and send the entire record before the Court. We have been informed by the learned counsel for the respondents that challan has also been submitted to the Court and thereafter 2 or 3 adjournments have also taken place. Learned counsel of the petitioner submitted that order, dated 3-12-2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge (ex officio justice of peace) is not permissible under the law, for .the said Court could transfer investigation from the one Police Officer to another but could not direct, stoppage of the same permanently and submission of the record of the case to his Court.
4. In our discretion under Article 185 of the Constitution, we are not inclined in the facts and circumstances of this case to exercise discretion to grant leave to examine this question, for according to the subsequent developments, challan has also been submitted to the Court and instead of embarking upon further re-investigation of the case, it was appropriate that the case is tried by the Court and final judgment pronounced. Whatever evidence the accused persons want to produce before the Investigating Officer, they may produce before the Court.
5. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed and leave refused. N.H.Q./M-78/S Leave refused.