1991 PLP 1172 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1172 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1172 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1172 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1172 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD SHARIF — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Siddique Chughtai for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.4(1)(h)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.182
Police Officer after having drafted a report under S.182, P.P.C. forwarded the same to Superintendent of Police which was marked to P.D.S.P.
Order whereby P.D.S.P. forwarded the said report to Magistrate for hearing, held, would not constitute a valid complaint within the definition of "complaint" given in cl. (h) of S.4 of Cr.P.C.
Since there was no valid complaint, so Magistrate could neither take cognizance on the report of Police Officer, nor could he proceed further in the matter--Conviction and sentence awarded to accused by Magistrate were set aside and accused was acquitted of the charge in circumstances.
S.4(1)(h)
"Complaint", essential requirements to give validity to
For a valid complaint it is very much necessary that the report or the allegations should be addressed to Magistrate and not to Superintendent of police or any other Police Officer.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Siddique Chughtai for Petitioner. Shawar Khilji for the State. Date of hearing: 11th February, 1991. Muhammad Sharif petitioner had lodged F.I.R. under sections 13 and 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, against Muhammad Siddiq at Police Chauki Kotli Loharan, District Sialkot. During the investigation, the allegations were found false, so the case was cancelled. On this Ata Muhammad A.S.I. Incharge Police Chauki, Kotli Loharan, drafted a report under section 182 of the P.P.C. and forwarded the same to the Superintendent of Police, Sialkot, which was marked to the P.D.S.P. who on 27-4-1982, passed the following order:
When this report was produced before the Magistrate, he passed the following order on it:-- On this, the accused was summoned. The charge was framed and the witnesses were examined. Ultimately, the accused was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for three months' R.I.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that offence under section 182 of the P.P.C. was/is not cognizable; that the report of A.S.I., Police Chauki Kotli Loharan on which the Magistrate has taken cognizance and sentenced the accused was not addressed to the Magistrate. It was sent to the S.P. and, as such, there was no valid complaint.
3. I have considered the matter carefully. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner. The word "complaint" has been defined in clause (h) of section 4 of the Cr.P.C., which may be re-produced advantageously:-- S.4(h):
'Complaint" means the allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but it does not include the report of a police officer." The bare reading of the provisions of law reproduced above will show that for a valid complaint, it was very much necessary that the report or the allegations should have been addressed to the Magistrate and not to the Superintendent of Police or any other police officer. The order written by the P.D.S.P., that will not constitute a valid complaint within the definition of "complaint" given in clause (h) of section 4 of the Cr.P.C. Since there was no valid complaint, so the Magistrate could neither take cognizance on the report of the A.S.I. nor could he proceed further in the matter. This being the position, the entire proceedings must tumble down:
4. For what has been said above, this revision is accepted. The conviction and sentence is set aside and the petitioner is acquitted of the charge. He is on bail. He stands discharged of his bail bond. N.H.Q,./M-2726/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision accepted.