P L D 1994 Lahore 407 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus S.H.O. SADAR, SIALKOT and 4 others‑‑‑ Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1994 Lahore 407 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Mian NazirAkhtar ,J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus S.H.O. SADAR, SIALKOT and 4 others‑‑‑ Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1994 Lahore 407 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1994 Lahore 407 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Mian NazirAkhtar ,J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1994 Lahore 407 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus S.H.O. SADAR, SIALKOT and 4 others‑‑‑ Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- S.M. Idrees for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Yaqoob Sheikh for Respondents Nos. 3 to 5.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 173‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 337‑F(ii)/34‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑ Cancellation of case‑‑‑ Magistrate had ordered cancellation of the case against accused merely on the basis of the investigation reports of different police officers without having independently considered the material on the record, particularly the medico‑legal report and the statements of eye‑witnesses‑‑‑ Magistrate ought to have given reasons so as to indicate application of mind to the facts of the case ‑‑‑Order of the Magistrate was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect in circumstances with the direction to him to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Bahadur and another v. State and another PLD 1985 SC 62; Khalil A. Malik etc. v. Mian Aftab Sehgal etc. ICA No. 186 of 1990, decided on 29‑8‑1990 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 173‑‑‑ Cancellation of case‑‑‑ Hearing of parties ‑‑‑Order of cancellation of a criminal case being an administrative order, Magistrate is not obliged to hear the parties or their counsel ‑‑‑Magistrate, however, if he so desires might hear them for clarification of and question of law or fact involved in the case. Respondent No. 3 in person. Waheed Anwar for the State
Judgment & Decree
This Constitutional petition has been filed to call in question the legality of the order dated 24‑10‑1993 passed by the Ilaqa Magistrate, Sialkot, whereby, he ordered cancellation of the criminal case registered against respondents Nos. 3 to 5 vide F.LR. No. 186 dated 4‑7‑1993 for offences under sections 337‑F (ii)/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at P.S. Sadar, Sialkot.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents Nos. 3 to 5 at length. The impugned order appears to have been passed merely on the basis of the investigation reports of different police officers. Although, in the opening sentence of the order, the learned Magistrate has mentioned that he has perused the record, .he does not appear to have independently considered the material on the record, particularly, the medico‑legal report of 'the medical board and the statements of the eye‑witnesses. He ought to have given reasons so as to indicate application of mind to the facts of the case. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bahadur and another v. State and another PLD 1985 SC 62 that in canceling a registered criminal case, a Magistrate is required to act judicially, in that, he has to act fairly, justly and honestly. In the case of Khalil A. Malik etc. v. Mian Aftab Sehgal etc. (ICA No.186‑90, decided on 29‑8‑1990), it was held, "the three preconditions to act fairly, justly and honestly cast a duty on the Magistrate to apply his mind to the material placed before him and after duly considering the pros and cons of the matter, pass a speaking and well‑reasoned order. He is not expected to put his signatures on the dotted line, or blindly ditto the report of the police signifying his lack of application of mind or giving the impression of being led by the nose by them".
3. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, this petition is allowed, the impugned order is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The learned Magistrate shall pass a fresh order in accordance with the law and the observations made in this order.
4. Since an order for cancellation of a criminal case is an administrative order, there is no obligation on the Magistrate to hear the parties or their learned counsel. However, if he so desires, he may give them a hearing for clarification of any question of law or fact involved in the case. N.H.Q./M‑1554/L? Petition allowed.