1969 P Cr (PLP)
SHAKHAWAT ULLAH KAZI AND 6 OTHERS — Petitioners Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1969 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | SHAKHAWAT ULLAH KAZI AND 6 OTHERS — Petitioners Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 P Cr (PLP) (SHAKHAWAT ULLAH KAZI AND 6 OTHERS — Petitioners Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- K. A. Bakar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A. W. Miah, Attorney for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 23rd August 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 9th May 1968, in Criminal Revision No. 769 of 1967). Penal Code (XLV of 1860)
Ss. 147 & 431‑Magistrate, on private complaint, drawing up proceeding under S. 144, Cr. P. C. and after lapse of statutory life of order under S. 144 issuing summons to accused for offences under Ss. 147 & 431, P. P. C. Contention that order passed by Magistrate was illegal because complainant had not been examined under S. 202, Cr. P. C.‑Held, cognizance could lawfully be taken by Magistrate under S. 190(1)(c), Cr. P. C. and examination of accused, in circumstance, was not necessary.
Judgment & Decree
K. A. Bakar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by A. W. Miah, Attorney for Petitioners. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 23rd August 1968. HAMOODUR RAHMAN, J.‑On a complaint made by a private individual for drawing up proceedings under section 107/117(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code against the petitioners before us and also for the issuance of an order under section 144, Cr. P. C. to stop them from cutting or damaging the Thana Council Road, the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate, Noakhali drew up proceeding under section 144, Cr. P. C. and ordered the Circle Officer, Begumganj to enquire into the matter and submit a report. On the basis of the report of the Circle Officer, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, after the lapse of the statutory life of the order under section 144, Cr. P. C. directed the issuance of summonses against the petitioners under sections 147 and 431 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The petitioners challenged the validity of the action of the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate unsuccessfully before the Sessions Judge and then moved the High Court of East Pakistan in revision. The learned Single Judge of the High Court took the view that no illegality had been committed by the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate as the impugned order could have been validly issued under section 204, Cr. P. C. The further objection to the validity of the order on the ground of non‑examination of the complainant on oath under sections 200 and 202 of Cr. P. C. was also found to be of no substance as the Sub‑Divisional Magistrate having taken cognizance of the offence on the basis of the report submitted by a public officer acting in the discharge of his official duty, was not bound to examine the complainant on oath. The same arguments have been advanced before us in support of this petition as to the validity of the action of the Sub Divisional Magistrate. We see no substance, however, in any of them, for, cognizance could lawfully have been taken by the Sub Divisional Magistrate even under section 190(1)(c), Cr. P. C. on the basis of the information contained in the report of the Circle Officer and in such event no examination of complainant was necessary. This petition is accordingly dismissed. Leave refused.