2016 PLP 214 (GBLR)
The STATE — Petitioner Versus EHSAN ALI, ADVOCATE and 6 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 PLP 214 (GBLR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Appellate Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | The STATE — Petitioner Versus EHSAN ALI, ADVOCATE and 6 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 214 (GBLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 214 (GBLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Appellate Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 214 (GBLR) (The STATE — Petitioner Versus EHSAN ALI, ADVOCATE and 6 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- EHSAN ALI, ADVOCATE and 6 others---Respondents
- ----S. 342---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.196 & 561-A---Wrongful confinement---Quashing of FIR---Impugned FIR was quashed, State being aggrieved filed petition for leave to appeal to Supreme Appellate Court---FIR in question was registered in violation of the mandatory provisions of S.196, Cr.P.C.---Advocate-General could not point out any illegality and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Chief Court---Petition for leave to appeal was refused.
- Advocate General along with Ali Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Ehsan Ali, Advocate/respondent along with Israr-ud-Din, Muhammad Farooq, Faizan Mir, Aziz Ahmed, Safdar Ali and Muhammad Javed for Respondents/Accused.
- 2. The learned Advocate General submits that the FIR against the respondent and others was registered in accordance with law as verbal sanction was obtained from the competent authorities as per requirement of law. He also submits that due to gravity of the situation and apprehension of losses and damages caused to national interest it was essential to chalk out an FIR promptly by the State. He further submits that the FIR was registered under section 342, P.P.C. which is a cognizable offence and the same does not fall under ambit of section 196, Cr.P.C. He reiterates that verbal permission was obtained from the competent authorities of the Provincial Government which was not adhered by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court while quashing the FIR. He also submits that the prosecution was not given opportunity to prove its case against him and others. He finally submits that the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court fell in error in deciding the application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., hence, the impugned order is not tenable and liable to be set aside.
- 4. We have heard both the learned counsel for the respective parties at length, perused the record of the case file and gone through the impugned order dated 29.05.2015 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court. The provisions of section 196, Cr.P.C. have also been perused. The FIR in question was registered in violation of the mandatory provisions of section 196, Cr.P.C. The learned Advocate General could not point out any illegality and infirmity in the said impugned order dated 29.05.2015 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 342
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.196 & 561-A
Wrongful confinement
Quashing of FIR
Impugned FIR was quashed, State being aggrieved filed petition for leave to appeal to Supreme Appellate Court
FIR in question was registered in violation of the mandatory provisions of S.196, Cr.P.C.
Advocate-General could not point out any illegality and infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Chief Court
Petition for leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
DR. RANA MUHAMMAD SHAMIM, C.J.
This Criminal Petition has arisen out of the impugned order dated 29.05.2015 in Criminal Petition No. 161/2014 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court, whereby the petition of the respondents was accepted by quashing the impugned FIR No. 79/2014 being against the law. The petitioner/State being aggrieved filed this petition for leave to appeal.
2. The learned Advocate General submits that the FIR against the respondent and others was registered in accordance with law as verbal sanction was obtained from the competent authorities as per requirement of law. He also submits that due to gravity of the situation and apprehension of losses and damages caused to national interest it was essential to chalk out an FIR promptly by the State. He further submits that the FIR was registered under section 342, P.P.C. which is a cognizable offence and the same does not fall under ambit of section 196, Cr.P.C. He reiterates that verbal permission was obtained from the competent authorities of the Provincial Government which was not adhered by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court while quashing the FIR. He also submits that the prosecution was not given opportunity to prove its case against him and others. He finally submits that the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court fell in error in deciding the application under section 561-A, Cr.P.C., hence, the impugned order is not tenable and liable to be set aside.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Ehsan Ali respondent along with 06 other respondents are present who support the impugned order dated 29.05.2015 in Criminal Petition No. 161/2014 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court which according to them was passed in accordance with law. They contend that the impugned order dated 29.05.2015 in Criminal Petition No. 161/2015 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court is well reasoned and well founded and no interference is warranted thereto.
4. We have heard both the learned counsel for the respective parties at length, perused the record of the case file and gone through the impugned order dated 29.05.2015 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court. The provisions of section 196, Cr.P.C. have also been perused. The FIR in question was registered in violation of the mandatory provisions of section 196, Cr.P.C. The learned Advocate General could not point out any illegality and infirmity in the said impugned order dated 29.05.2015 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court.
5. In view of the above discussions, the leave is refused. The impugned order dated 29.05.2015 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court is in accordance with law which is upheld.