2007 PLP 3129 (YLR)
Haji NAWAB ALI — Petitioner Versus MAGISTRATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 3129 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Tariq Shamim, J |
| Parties | Haji NAWAB ALI — Petitioner Versus MAGISTRATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 3129 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 3129 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Tariq Shamim, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 3129 (YLR) (Haji NAWAB ALI — Petitioner Versus MAGISTRATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Bashir Ahmad Chaudhary for Petitioner.
- 2. The learned Additional Advocate-General also concedes that the impugned order is not a speaking order as no reasons have been .assigned by the learned Magistrate while agreeing with the opinion of the Investigating Officer and without perusing the record.
- 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Advocate-General.
Headnotes / Summary
S.169
General. Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Magistrate had accepted the cancellation report endorsing the opinion of the Investigating Officer in a mechanical manner without giving any reasons and without perusing the record or hearing the parties
Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, had provided that any authority whether judicial or quasi judicial or even an executive authority vested with any power to pass an order, was required to give reasons in respect thereof
Impugned order had been passed by Magistrate without application of judicious mind in a mechanical manner and without perusing the police file and thus same was not a judicious or a speaking order
Said order was consequently set aside with the direction to Magistrate to pass a speaking order afresh after perusing the record and hearing the parties
Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Tariq Pirzada and others 1999 SCMR 2744 acid Ahmad Din v. Illaqa Magistrate and others 2002 YLR .1049 ref. M.R. Khalid Malik, Addl. A.-G. with Ajmal, S.-I.
Judgment & Decree
TARIQ SHAMIM, J.
Through this petition, the vires of the orders passed by the learned Magistrate Section 30 Sahiwal dated 8-1-2005 have been called in question on the ground that the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order did not assign any reasons for accepting the cancellation report and in a mechanical manner endorsed the opinion of the Investigating Officer without perusing the record or hearing the parties.
2. The learned Additional Advocate-General also concedes that the impugned order is not a speaking order as no reasons have been .assigned by the learned Magistrate while agreeing with the opinion of the Investigating Officer and without perusing the record.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Advocate-General.
4. Perusal of the order of the learned Magistrate' dated 8-1-2005 reveals that orders were passed without application of judicious mind and without perusing the police file in a mechanical manner. Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that any authority whether judicial or quasi-judicial or even an executive authority vested with any power to pass an order is required to give reasons in respect thereof. The impugned order cannot be termed as a judicious or a speaking order. In view of the dictum laid down by the Hon`able Supreme Court in case of Federation of Pakistan v Muhammad Tariq Pirzada and other (1999 SCMR 2744) and the case of Ahmed Din v. Illaqa Magistrate, etc. (2002 YLR 1049), I accept the writ petition and set aside the order dated B 8-1-2005. The learned Magistrate is directed to pass an order afresh after hearing the parties and perusing the record through a speaking order. N.H.Q./N-60/L Petition allowed.