1987 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1987 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mazhar-ul-Haq, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mazhar-ul-Haq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD NAWAZ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Zaman Bhatti for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 202 &439--Irregularity in procedure--Whether curable--Additional Sessions Judge referring complaint to Deputy Superintendent of Police for inquiry without recording statement of complainant--Additional Sessions Judge, held, should have conducted inquiry himself or sent it to local Magistrate
Irregularity in procedure being curable complaint was recalled from Deputy Superintendent of Police for proceedings according to law. Zahid Mehmood for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Ss. 202 &439--Irregularity in procedure--Whether curable--Additional Sessions Judge referring complaint to Deputy Superintendent of Police for inquiry without recording statement of complainant--Additional Sessions Judge, held, should have conducted inquiry himself or sent it to local Magistrate
Irregularity in procedure being curable complaint was recalled from Deputy Superintendent of Police for proceedings according to law. Muhammad Zaman Bhatti for Petitioner. Zahid Mehmood for the State. Muhammad Nawaz, petitioner, has come up in revision against the order, dated 20-4-1986 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, directing the D.S.P., Sumandri, to hold an enquiry in the complaint filed by the petitioner.
2. Petitioner's main grievance is that without recording complainant's statement, the complaint could not be referred for an enquiry to the D.S.P. It was next contended that earlier during investigation of the same case, police found the accused innocent, therefore, in propriety the complaint should not have been sent to the same investigating agency.
3. Learned State counsel contended that it was an irregularity inl not recording the statement of the complainant first which was curable. I have considered the submissions and am of the view that in propriety the Additional Sessions Judge should have either held the enquiry himself or sent it to a local Magistrate. In this view of the matter, I direct that the complaint to be recalled from the D . S . P. and the learned Additional Sessions Judge should proceed accordingly. S.A. Complaint recalled.