PLD 1975

P L D 1975 Lahore 1315 (PLP)

SHARIF AND 4 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Decided Date
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 53/Q of 1975, decided on 24th April 1975.‑
Honorable Judges
Aslam Riaz Hussain, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation P L D 1975 Lahore 1315 (PLP)
Forum / Court
Bench Members Aslam Riaz Hussain, J
Parties SHARIF AND 4 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1975 Lahore 1315 (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1975 Lahore 1315 (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Aslam Riaz Hussain, J.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1975 Lahore 1315 (PLP) (SHARIF AND 4 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Syed Fayyaz Hussain Hamdani for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑ 5. 561‑A‑Quashment of proceedingsPolice though empowered to investigate case under S. 188, P. P. C. and file challan in Court, yet complaint under S. 195(1)(a) within meaning of S. 4(h). Cr. P. C. to be filed of necessityMagistrate taking cognizance in absence of such complaint, trial, held, illegal‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 188 Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 4(h) & 195(1)(a). Although the police is empowered to investigate a case and file a challan in the Court of a Magistrate, a complaint within the meaning of section 4(h), Cr. P. C. has necessarily to be filed, before the Magistrate can take cognizance of the case. It appears that, as in so many other cases where amendments in the Penal Code or the Criminal Procedure Code have been made after the Partition, the amendment in Schedule II of the Cr. P. C. making an offence under section 188, P. P. C. cognizable, was made in a. hurry, over‑looking the necessity for making a corresponding amendment in section 195(1)(a), Cr. P. C. The result is that a Magistrate cannot take cognizance of a case under section 188, P. P. C. unless and until the concern ed officer (in this case the District Magistrate or one of his subordinates),, files a complaint before the Magistrate. Nemat Khan and Muhammad Saeed Ahmad for the State.

Judgment & Decree

This is an application by Sharif and four others under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. for the quashment of proceedings against them under section 188, Cr. P. C., pending in the Court of Mr. Manzoor Ahmad Bajwa, M. I. C. Sahiwal, in pursuance of F. I. R. No. 225/74, dated 5‑11‑1974. The peti tioners are alleged to have violate an order of the District Magistrate, Sahiwal (No. 8760/G/HC), dated 14‑10‑1974 whereby all ten were prohibited from removing the crops without giving batai to the owners of the land cultivate by them. A case was accordingly registered against them vide the aforemen tioned F. I. R. and was investigated by the police, which filed the challan in the Court of a local Magistrate.

2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the police had no authority to investigate a case under section 188, P. P. C. and that offence is not cognizable and secondly that no Court can take cognizance of the case in view of the provisions of section 195 (1) (a), Cr. P. C., which reads as follows :‑ 195(1)(a) No Court shall take congizance :‑ of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned, or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate. The learned State Counsel pointed out, on the other hand, that the ,offence under section 188, P. P. C. has been made cognizable by an amend ment in Schedule II of the Criminal Procedure Code (Refer P L D 1969 Provincial Statutes 52), and the police is, therefore, entitled to investigate the case.

3. The question which arises for consideration is whether, under the peculiar circumstances of this case when there is a conflict between two provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, namely, that while an offence under section 188, P. P. C. has been made cognizable and the police is thus authorised to investigate the case and submit a challan in the Court of a Magistrate, the Magistrate is not empowered to take cognizance thereof in view of the bar placed upon the same by section 195(1) (a), Cr. P. C. Having considered these contentions carefully, I feel that although the police is empowered to investigate a case and file a challan in the Court o a Magistrate, a complaint within the meaning of section 4(h), Cr. P. C. has necessarily to be filed, before the learned Magistrate can take cognizance o the case. It appears that, as in so many other cases where amendments in the Penal Code or the Criminal Procedure Code have been made after the Partition, the amendment in Schedule II of the Cr. P. C. making an offence under section 188, P. P. C. cognizable, was made in a hurry, over‑looking the necessity for making a corresponding amendment in section 195(1)(a),l Gr. P. C. Tile result is that a Magistrate cannot take cognizance of a easel under section 188, P. P. C. unless and until the concerned officer (in this case, the District Magistrate or one of his subordinates), files a complaint before the learned Magistrate.

4. Since no such complaint has been filed in the present case, the learned Magistrate could not, therefore, take cognizance of the same and the proceed ings taken by him, by way of trial, would be illegal. The proceedings before him are, therefore, quashed. It is, however, open to the learned District Magistrate to file a complaint in compliance with the provision of section 195 (1)(a), Cr. P. C., on which the proceedings against the petitioner, can be started again.

5. This disposes of the application. S. A. H. Proceedings quashed.