P L D 1979 Quetta 156 (PLP)
Before Mir Hazar Khan Khoo, J FARID‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH WASAYA‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1979 Quetta 156 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Ss. 190 & 193‑Cognizance‑Court of Session‑Not a Court of original jurisdiction, hence, can take cognizance of case only when sent to it by a Magistrate‑Direct taking cognizance of a complaint filed before it by a Sessions Court, held, in utter violation of provisions of S. 193 and liable to be quashed.‑Cognizance. |
| Bench Members | Mir Hazar Khan Khoo, J FARID‑Petitioner |
| Parties | Before Mir Hazar Khan Khoo, J FARID‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH WASAYA‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1979 Quetta 156 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1979 Quetta 156 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Ss. 190 & 193‑Cognizance‑Court of Session‑Not a Court of original jurisdiction, hence, can take cognizance of case only when sent to it by a Magistrate‑Direct taking cognizance of a complaint filed before it by a Sessions Court, held, in utter violation of provisions of S. 193 and liable to be quashed.‑Cognizance. bench comprising: Mir Hazar Khan Khoo, J FARID‑Petitioner.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1979 Quetta 156 (PLP) (Before Mir Hazar Khan Khoo, J FARID‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH WASAYA‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Afsar for Petitioner,
- Date of hearing; 20th March 1979.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 190 & 193‑Cognizance‑Court of Session‑Not a Court of original jurisdiction, hence, can take cognizance of case only when sent to it by a Magistrate‑Direct taking cognizance of a complaint filed before it by a Sessions Court, held, in utter violation of provisions of S. 193 and liable to be quashed.‑[Cognizance]. Respondent in person. Muhammad Yousuf Ch., A. A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing; 20th March 1979. The short point involved in this petition under. section 435/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code is whether a Sessions' Court is competent to take direct cognizance as a Court of original jurisdiction of a case exclusively triable by it on a direct complaint filed before it.
2. On this crucial point I have heard Mr. Raja Muhammad Afsar, Advocate, and Muhammad Yousaf Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate‑General, Baluchistan. The learned counsel haA produced before me recent law on the proposition. The cases of Muhammad Islam and 2 others v. Mst. Natho Bihi (P L D 1977 Lah: 535) and Hajl Kamal Khan v. Muhammad Naeem etc. (P L D 1979 Quetta 69). The proposition has been elaborately discussed in these both citations. In case of Muhammad Aslam it has been observed that a Court of Session is barred from taking cognizance directly as a Court of original jurisdiction unless the same has been sent to it under section 190 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The same view has been taken by the High Court of Baluchistan in case of Haji Kamal Khan. It has been held that in a case exclusively triable by a Court of Session, a complaint is to be filed before a Magistrate for taking cognizance under section 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code. After taking the cognizance the Magistrate may send the case to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Court again takes the cognizance of the case. The Court of Sessions is not a Court of original jurisdiction. It would be seized of case only when a case is sent to it by a Magistrate.
3. I unhesitatingly take the same view and hold that a Court of Session is not a Court of original jurisdiction it can take cognizance of a case only when a case is sent to it by a Magistrate.
4. In view of the legal position discussed above the direct taking of the cognizance by the learned Sessions Judge, Sibi against the Petitioner Muhammad Farid is in utter violation of the provision of section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Taking of such cognizance cannot maintained. It is as such quashed. 5, The learned Sessions Judge, is directed to return the complaint to the complainant, who may file it, if he so desires, before a Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction.
6. The petition is disposed of accordingly. S. A. H. Order accordingly.