2007 PLP 1373 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD SHABIR alias SHABO and 5 others — Petitioners Versus JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DUNIYAPUR, DISTRICT LODHRAN and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1373 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Tariq Shamim, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHABIR alias SHABO and 5 others — Petitioners Versus JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DUNIYAPUR, DISTRICT LODHRAN and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1373 (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 1373 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Tariq Shamim, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1373 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD SHABIR alias SHABO and 5 others — Petitioners Versus JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DUNIYAPUR, DISTRICT LODHRAN and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Javed Akhtar Wains for Petitioner.
- Sardar Zafar Ahmad Lund, for Respondent No.3.
- 2. The learned Additional Advocate-General also concedes that the impugned order is not a speaking order as no reasons have been assigned by the learned Magistrate while disagreeing with the report of the Investigating Officer.
- 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Additional Advocate-General.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 169 & 173
General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Police report--Discharge of report
Petitioners had alleged that Magistrate declined to agree with discharge report and in a mechanical manner had disagreed with the opinion of the Investigating Officer with non-speaking order without perusing record or hearing the parties
Order passed by the Magistrate had revealed that same was passed by Magistrate without application of judicious mind and without perusing the police file
Under provisions of S.24 of General Clauses Act, 1897, any Authority whether judicial or quasi-judicial or even an executive Authority vested with' any power to pass an order, was required to give reasons in respect thereof
Impugned order could not be termed as a judicious or a speaking order
High Court accepting constitutional petition set aside impugned order, with direction to Magistrate to pass an order afresh after hearing and perusing the record through speaking order. Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Tariq Pirzada and others 1999 SCMR 2744 and Ahmad Din v. Illaqa Magistrate and others 2003 YLR 1049 ref. M.R. Khalid Malik, Addl. A.-G. on Court's Call.
Judgment & Decree
TARIQ SHAMIM, J.
Through this petition, the vires of the order& passed by the learned Magistrate Ist-Class, Dunyapur, District Lodhran dated 16-5-2006 have been called in question on the ground that the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order did not assign any reasons while declining the discharge report and in a mechanical manner has disagreed with the opinion of the Investigating Officer without perusing the record or hearing the parties.
2. The learned Additional Advocate-General also concedes that the impugned order is not a speaking order as no reasons have been assigned by the learned Magistrate while disagreeing with the report of the Investigating Officer.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Additional Advocate-General.
4. Perusal of the order of the learned Magistrate dated 16-5-2006 reveals that orders were passed without application of judicious mind and without perusing the police file in a mechanical manner. Section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides that any authority whether judicial or quasi judicial or even an executive authority vested with any power to pass an order is required to give reasons in respect thereof. The impugned order cannot be termed as a judicious or a speaking order. In view of the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in case of Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Tariq Pirzada and others 1999 SCMR 2744 and the case of Ahmad Din v. Illaqa Magistrate and others 2003 YLR 1049, I accept the writ petition and set aside the order dated 16-5-2006. The learned Magistrate is directed to pass an order afresh after hearing the parties and perusing the record through a speaking order. H.B.T./M-139/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.