2000 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2000 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Zafar Pasha Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Zafar Pasha Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Islam Sheikh for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 23rd February, 2000.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 161 & 204‑‑‑Cognizance of offence‑ ‑‑Issuance of process‑‑‑Contention of accused was that mere reference to statements under S.161, Cr.P.C. was not sufficient to issue process to accused but Trial Court should have recorded some evidence and after collecting some material he could have issued process‑‑‑General practice no doubt was that Trial Court recorded some evidence and in case some material against an accused came on record then process was issued, but Trial, Court was not bound to record evidence before issuing process‑‑‑Process could be issued on basis of material which was presented alongwith challan, which already existed on police file, if Court considered that justifiable grounds existed to issue process. Shaukat Ali and others v. The State 1995 PCr.LJ 1749 ref. M. Bilal Khan, Addl. A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
The learned counsel has argued that as per authority cited by him i.e. Shaukat Ali and others v. The State 1995 PCr.L3 1749 it has been observed that the learned trial Court should not have issued process mechanically, rather the material on the basis of which the process is issued should have been specified. It has further been observed in that authority that opinion of police is not binding on Court, meaning thereby that in spite of declaration of an accused person as innocent by the police the trial Court has the authority to summon the accused to face trial. There is no cavil with the said proposition.
2. The learned counsel supplements his arguments that merely reference to statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. is not sufficient, the learned trial Court should have recorded some evidence and after collecting some material he could have issued the process. It is true that general practice is that the trial Court records some evidence and in case some material against an accused person comes on record, then issues process but it does not mean that trial Court is bound to record the evidence and only then the process can be issued. The process can be issued on the basis of the material which is presented alongwith the challan and already present on the police file. If the Court considers that there are justifiable grounds to issue process, Court can summon the accused person. In the present case he has referred to the statements under section 161, Cr.P.C. which in my mind appear prima facie to be sufficient to summon the petitioner. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order calling for any interference by this Court. This revision petition is dismissed. H.B.T./M‑176/L Petition dismissed.