1991 P Cr (PLP)
Mst. AMTUL MUBIN alias Mst. MUBIN KARIM — Petitioner Versus MAGISTRATE ILLAQA, SOUTH CANTT LAHORE and 7 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Falak Sher, J |
| Parties | Mst. AMTUL MUBIN alias Mst. MUBIN KARIM — Petitioner Versus MAGISTRATE ILLAQA, SOUTH CANTT LAHORE and 7 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 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 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Falak Sher, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 P Cr (PLP) (Mst. AMTUL MUBIN alias Mst. MUBIN KARIM — Petitioner Versus MAGISTRATE ILLAQA, SOUTH CANTT LAHORE and 7 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Q.M. Saleem for Petitioner.
- Ghulam Bari and Farooq Bedar, A.A.G. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 173(3)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/307/34 read with S. 324 [as amended]
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Although the order of Magistrate discharging accused on police request was administrative in nature, yet the Magistrate was not supposed to render his discretion subservient to the police dictate and to act in a pure mechanical fashion
Magistrate was rather obliged to apply his independent mind to the facts adduced on record by investigating agency and to formulate his own opinion which was lacking in the case
Such order of Magistrate was consequently set aside and case was remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
S. 173(3)
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/307/34 read with S. 324 [as amended]
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Although the order of Magistrate discharging accused on police request was administrative in nature, yet the Magistrate was not supposed to render his discretion subservient to the police dictate and to act in a pure mechanical fashion
Magistrate was rather obliged to apply his independent mind to the facts adduced on record by investigating agency and to formulate his own opinion which was lacking in the case
Such order of Magistrate was consequently set aside and case was remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law. Q.M. Saleem for Petitioner. Ghulam Bari and Farooq Bedar, A.A.G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1991. In the case registered vide F.I.R. No.2 of 12-1-1991 under section 302/307/34, P.P.C. read with section 324 of Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, 1990 at Police Station South Cantt, Lahore against respondents 3 to 5 alongwith two others alleging murder of petitioner's son Khurram Karim, the respondents were discharged by Magistrate, Factory Area, Lahore vide the impugned order dated 20-1-1991, granting the police request in the following terms:-- MULZAMAN BA-HARRASAT POLICE HAZAR MULZAMAN KO UDOM SABOOT, O, BRAMDAGEE HESSAB-E-ISSTADA MUQADMA HAZA SAYY DISCHARGE KIA JATA HAY. Legality whereof was assailed m these proceedings by contending that the learned Magistrate has acted purely mechanically solely on the police report without application of independent mind, whereupon the respondents were summoned to join the proceedings, during the course of hearing whereof the learned Additional Advocate-General frankly stated that the impugned order is unsustainable while learned counsel for the respondents stated that not only the matter is being reinvestigated at the complainant's instance but also she can avail of the alternative remedy of lodging a private complaint, with which I am not persuaded for the reason that irrespective of the fact that the order impugned is administrative in nature, the Magistrate is not supposed to render his discretion subservient to the police dictate and to act in a pure mechanical fashion, rather is obliged to apply his independent mind to the facts adduced on the record by the investigating agency and to formulate his own opinion, which in the instant case admittedly is lacking; consequently, the impugned order, is set aside and the matter is deemed to be pending before the Court concerned who shall pass such order as may deem fit in accordance with law. The petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. N.H.Q./A-1248/L Case remanded.