2007 PLP 1284 (YLR)
ABDUL MALIK — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1284 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Tariq Shamim, J |
| Parties | ABDUL MALIK — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1284 (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 1284 (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 1284 (YLR) (ABDUL MALIK — Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. M.S. Shad for Petitioner.
- Javed Bashir for Respondent No.4.
- Muhammad Arif Bhinder, Addl. Advocate-General.
- 4. Learned Additional Advocate-General in all fairness did not oppose the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
- 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Additional Advocate-General.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 22-A & 22-B
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition-Application under Ss.22-A & 22-B, Cr. P. C. before Justice of Peace for registration of criminal case against petitioner
Justice of Peace sought a report from S.H.O. concerned and without waiting for the report by S.H.O., which was a legal requirement, decided the application
Justice of Peace was not bestowed with any authority or jurisdiction under Ss. 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C. to give any direction to S.H.O. to intimate the Public Prosecutor of - the court regarding proceedings taken on an application
Order to that extent was clearly without jurisdiction and beyond purview of Ss.22-A & 22-B,' Cr.P.C.-Impugned order was set aside, application would be deemed to be pending before Justice of Peace, who would decide same afresh after hearing parties. Khizar Hayat v. The State PLD 2005 SC 470 rel.. Muhammad Arif Bhinder, Addl. Advocate-General. Miss Bushra Aziz, S.H.O. Women Police Station, Race Course, Lahore.
Judgment & Decree
TARIQ SHAMIM, J.
Respondent No.4 filed an application under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his capacity as Justice of Peace for registration of a criminal case against the petitioner and the learned Justice of Peace sought a report from the S.H.O. concerned. Since the report was not submitted, as such the learned Judge did not wait for the same and decided the application with a direction to respondent No.4 to file an application within five days with the S.H.O., who was further given a direction to conduct proceedings which reflected from the same within a period of 10 days under intimation to the Public Prosecutor of the Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge could not have passed 'the order without perusing the report submitted by the S.H.O. which was not available and that a direction could not have been given to the S.H.O. regarding intimation to the Public Prosecutor of the learned Court as sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. do not confer any such jurisdiction upon the learned Justice of Peace.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 contended that the order was strictly in accordance with law as no prejudice has been caused to any of the parties and even if the comments were not submitted by the S.H.O., the ultimate result would have been the same.
4. Learned Additional Advocate-General in all fairness did not oppose the stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well as the learned Additional Advocate-General.
6. Admittedly, learned Additional Sessions Judge in his capacity as Justice of Peace did not wait for the report which had to be submitted by the S.H.O. and was a legal requirement as observed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Khizar Hayat v. The State PLD 2005 SC
470. Further, the learned Justice of Peace is not A bestowed with any authority or jurisdiction under section 22-A or section 22-B, Cr.P.C. to give any direction to the S.H.O. to intimate the Public Prosecutor of the Court regarding proceedings taken on the application of the said respondent. To the said extent. the order is clearly without jurisdiction and beyond the purview of sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C.
7. Resultantly, this petition is accepted and the order dated 22-7-2006 is set aside. The petition under section 22-A, Cr.P.C. filed by respondent No.4 shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Justice of Peace, who shall decide the same afresh after hearing the parties concerned. H.B.T./A-13/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded.