2007 PLP 260 (YLR)
Rana MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN — Petitioner Versus SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-CORRUPTION PROVINCIAL, FAISALABAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 260 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-Zaman, J |
| Parties | Rana MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN — Petitioner Versus SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-CORRUPTION PROVINCIAL, FAISALABAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 260 (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 260 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Najam-uz-Zaman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 260 (YLR) (Rana MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN — Petitioner Versus SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-CORRUPTION PROVINCIAL, FAISALABAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Ghulam Nabi for Petitioner.
- S.M. Masood for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.200 & 537 Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.409, 468 & 471
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Petitioner had challenged the legality of the order whereby Trial Court on complaint filed by respondent for the offence under Ss.409, 468 & 471, P.P.C., had directed A.C.E. for registration of case and to proceed further in accordance with law
Non- recording of statement of complainant by the Court on receiving the private complaint, was an irregularity which was curable under S.537, Cr. P. C.
Trial Court in circumstances was competent to send case for the registration. Badshah and others v. The State PLD 1958 Dacca 598 rel. Muhammad Akbar Tarar, Addl. A.-G.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJUM -UZ-ZAMAN, J.
Through this constitutional petition the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 14-3-2005 whereby the learned trial Court (Special Judge Anti-Corruption Faisalabad) while disposing of the private complaint filed by respondent No.2 for the offence under sections 409/468/471, P.P.C. has directed A.C.E., Faisalabad for registration of the case and to proceed further in accordance with law.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that learned trial Court while entertaining the complaint was duty bound to record the statement of the complainant before proceeding further but this exercise was never taken up by the trial Court and thus the impugned order is not sustainable.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents while relying upon the case of Badshah and others v. The State (PLD 1958 Dacca 598) and Shamim v. The State (1966 SC 178) submits that once a private complaint is dismissed for non-prosecution and on entertaining second complaint for the same offence the trial Court can proceed with the matter without recording the statement of the complainant and the said irregularity is curable and times in the circumstances, there is no question of setting aside the impugned order.
4. After hearing the parties and perusing the record I have observed that the learned trial Court while entertaining the private complaint not the matter inquired into the Anti-Corruption Establishment and thereafter upon the request of the complainant had directed the concerned department to proceed further in accordance with the report of the Inquiry Officer for registration of the case and to inquire into the matter as required under the law. The crux of the case-law cited by the counsel for the respondent is that non-recording of the statement of the complainant by the Court on receiving the private complaint is an irregularity and curable under section 537, Cr.P.C. It is further held that the trial Court is competent to send the case for the registration of criminal case. In the light of settled proposition of law see no illegality in the impugned order. This petition having no merits stands dismissed. Office is directed to send back the record which was received from the trial Court. H.B.T./M-626/L Petition dismissed.