2002 P Cr (PLP)
Inspector Syed MAIRAJ ALI SHAH‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Rabbani and Muhammad Ashraf Leghari, JJ |
| Parties | Inspector Syed MAIRAJ ALI SHAH‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Anti‑Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Anti‑Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ghulam Rabbani and Muhammad Ashraf Leghari, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 P Cr (PLP) (Inspector Syed MAIRAJ ALI SHAH‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. A. Rasheed for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 30th October, 2001.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 27‑‑‑Defective investigation‑‑‑Allegation against the accused who happened to be a Police Inspector was that he was guilty of conducting defective investigation against a person who was involved in criminal case and that due to said defective inquiries the accused had been acquitted by the Trial Court‑‑‑Accused had stated that he had only prepared a memo. of inspection of scene of occurrence and had submitted only charge‑sheet in the case against said person and rest of the investigation had been conducted by some other Investigating Officer anti if any defect had been found in investigation that could not be attributed to him‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Judgment against the accused was not passed by a speaking order‑‑‑Assistant Advocate‑General who did not dispute the factual aspect of the matter, had stated that judgment passed against the accused be set aside and case be remanded to the Trial Court to pass a speaking judgment in accordance with law‑‑‑Judgment passed against the accused was set aside and case was remanded for fresh decision after providing him a proper opportunity of hearing. Habib Ahmed, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Habib Ahmed, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State. Date of hearing: 30th October, 2001.
1. Both the learned counsel state that a short point is involved in this matter, therefore, this appeal be heard and decide finally. Order accordingly.
2. Appellant has impugned the judgment, dated 18th October, 2001, whereby he has been found guilty of offence under section 27 of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three months and to pay an amount of Rs.20,000 as fine in default whereof to suffer S.I. for one month more.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant who happened to be an Inspector of Police investigated the offence under section 6(d) of Anti Terrorism Act, 1997 read with section 393, P.P.C. and an offence under section 13(d), Arms Ordinance, 1965 in Crimes Nos.170 and 171 of 2001. registered with Ferozabad Police Station, Karachi . The appellant submitted charge‑sheet against the accused, Syed Amir Ali, Administrative Judge A.T.C.'s from where, it was transferred to the Anti Terrorism Court .NO.IV, Karachi The said accused has been acquitted by the trial Court, however, the trial Court, on acquittal of the accused, has found the appellant guilty of conducting a defective investigation and has convicted and sentenced the appellant as above.
4. Contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant are that the appellant has been convicted without framing formal charge against only prepared a memo. of inspection of scene of occurrence and submitted a charge‑sheet in the above case and rest of the investigation has been conducted by some other Investigating Officer, therefore, in case any defect has been found in the investigation that cannot be attributed to the appellant. His further contention is that the impugned judgment against the discrepancies/infirmities/defects, if any, were found by the trial Court in the investigation that are attributable to the appellant to hold him guilty of the offence. He submits that impugned judgment is not speaking and is silent inasmuch as that it does not even refer to any part of the main judgment, whereby accused Sayed Amir Ali was acquitted, to disclose the discrepancies/defects, if any, in the investigation of the appellant. He submits that judgment has been passed by the trial Court in a slipshod manner.
5. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General, not disputed the factual aspect of the matter, has very frankly stated that the impugned judgment of 18‑10‑2001 be set aside and the matter remanded to the trial Court to pass speaking judgment in accordance with law.
6. We also do not feel ourselves inclined to disagree with the learned Assistant Advocate‑General. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment is set aside and the case is remanded to trial Court for fresh decision after providing a proper opportunity to the appellant, in accordance with law. The appellant shall be released forthwith if not involved in any other case. He shall appear before the trial Court on 6‑11‑2001 to Participate in the proceedings. In case, he fails to attend as above, the trial Court may proceed against him, in accordance with law. H.B.T./M‑297/K Order accordingly.