YLR 2007

2007 PLP 2919 (YLR)

FOZIA PERVEEN — Petitioner Versus JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SECTION 30, KHUSHAB

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Writ Petition No.12487 of 2006, decided on 21st December, 2006.
Honorable Judges
Syed Sajjad Hussain Shah, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2007 PLP 2919 (YLR)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Syed Sajjad Hussain Shah, J
Parties FOZIA PERVEEN — Petitioner Versus JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SECTION 30, KHUSHAB
Primary Law Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 2919 (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 2919 (YLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Sajjad Hussain Shah, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 2919 (YLR) (FOZIA PERVEEN — Petitioner Versus JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SECTION 30, KHUSHAB). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Representation

  • Fayyaz Ahmad Mehr for Petitioner.
  • Hashim Sabir Raja, A.A.-G. for Respondent.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 164

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199

Constitutional petition

Recording of second statement

Petitioner had sought direction to the Magistrate through her constitutional petition to record her second statement under S.164, Cr. P. C.

Magistrate in his order refusing to record second statement of petitioner, had not advanced any cogent reason for such refusal

Petitioner had alleged that when she was previously produced before Magistrate for recording of her statement she was not a .free agent as site was abducted and was forced to make statement

Section 164, Cr.P.C. did not indicate that second statement of petitioners could not be recorded under said section, .every if it already stood recorded

In the present case,' the moment petitioner got opportunity she joined her parents and narrated to them what happened with her

No bar existed on recording second statement under S.164, Cr. P. C., petition was allowed and order of the Magistrate refusing to record second statement of petitioner, was set aside, with direction to the Magistrate to record statement of petitioner under S.164, Cr. P. C., in accordance with law. Fozia Shabbir v. Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore and 8 others PLD 2006 Lah. 304 rel.

Judgment & Decree

SYED SAJJAD HUSSAIN SHAH, J.

Though the instant petition, the petitioner seeks. a direction to the Area Magistrate to record the statement of the petitioner under section 164, Cr.P.C. who particularly stated that she was abducted by respondent Muhammad Ijaz and .forcibly got her statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. under coercion and after getting rid out of the clutches of Muhammad Ijaz, the petitioner appeared before the Investigation Officer who produced her before the Magistrate and the Magistrate refused to record her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no bar under the law to record second statement under section 164, Cr.P.C. particularly, in the peculiar circumstances as narrated above. Reference may be placed upon the judgment reported as Fozia Shabbir v. Additional Session Judge, Lahore and 8 others PLD 2006 Lah. 304.

3. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

4. The learned Magistrate in his order dated 16-8-2006 has not advanced any cogent reasons to refuse recording of second statement of the petitioner under section 164, Cr.P.C. A bare perusal of section 164, Cr. P. C, does not indicate that the statement of petitioner cannot be recorded under this section, if it already stands recorded particularly, when, in the A present case, the petitioner herself urging that when she was previously produced before the Magistrate for recording of her statement, she was not a free agent. She was abducted by the respondents and was forced to make a statement on 15-7-2006. (Although, that has been recorded but the learned Magistrate on the other hand dismissed the application for recording the statement under section 164 Cr.P.C.). The moment, she got opportunity, she joined her parents and narrated to them what happened with her. As there is no bar in recording her statement under section 164, Cr.P.C., therefore, this petition is allowed and order A of the learned Magistrate dated 16-8-2006 is set aside.

5. The concerned learned Magistrate is directed to record the statement of the petitioner under section 164, Cr.P.C. strictly in accordance with law.

6. Disposed of accordingly. H.B.T./F-5/L Petition allowed.