PCRLJ 2002

2002 P Cr (PLP)

TARIQ IQBAL KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Writ Petition No.2413 of 2001, decided on 17th July, 2001.
Honorable Judges
Ali Nawaz Chowhan, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2002 P Cr (PLP)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Ali Nawaz Chowhan, J
Parties TARIQ IQBAL KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 P Cr (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 P Cr (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ali Nawaz Chowhan, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 P Cr (PLP) (TARIQ IQBAL KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Abdul Baseer Qureshi for Petitioner.

Headnotes / Summary

Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 406/468/471‑‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.63‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑ Discharge of the accused‑‑‑Petitioner had challenged order of the Judicial Magistrate rejecting discharge report submitted by the police‑‑‑Petitioner had contended that he had nothing to do with reported transaction and was not in any case criminally involved in the affairs of the business of the complainant‑‑‑Petitioner was not only exonerated from the charge by the three members of the Committee constituted by the S.E.C.P., but Additional S.P. also had come to the conclusion that no case was made out against the petitioner and S.P. after investigation was also of the same view‑‑‑Detailed discharge report submitted by the police was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate without giving cogent reasons simply stating that there was evidence against the petitioner, but failed to refer any such evidence‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Case was of non‑reading of the report of the police by the Magistrate and decision taken by Judicial Magistrate was in hurry and on the administrative side‑‑‑Such matters were to be disposed of with reference to all facts even if it was on administrative side like refusal to discharge the accused‑‑‑Order of Judicial Magistrate being infirm was set asides and case was remanded to decide afresh after adverting to facts of the case as well as police report. Tariq Bilal for the State.

Judgment & Decree

The matter pertains to F.I.R No.127, dated 28‑5‑2001, registered at Police Station Kohsar, District Islamabad, under sections 406, 468 and 471 of the P.P.C.

2. According to the petitioner, he had nothing to do with the reported transaction and was not in any case criminally involved in ‑the affairs of the business of the complainant in this connection. That not only three Members of the Committee constituted by the S.E.C.P. exonerated him from the charge but also the Additional S.P., Islamabad came to the conclusion that no case was made out. Not only this, the S.P. after investigation was also of the same view.

3. A discharge report was placed before the Ilaqa Magistrate with a detailed report from the police, which inter alia stated as follows.‑‑

4. However, while disposing of the police requests for discharge, the learned Judicial Magistrate Section 30, Islamabad, vide his orders, dated 27‑6‑2001 stated as follows:‑‑ "The record of the case has been perused. The accused is nominated in the case and there is a specific allegation against the accused that breach of trust of misappropriation of the amount of the complainant was made in connivance with the accused. In this situation, I disagree with the request of the police and reject the petition in hand."

5. The question which was raised before this Court was that what were the basis for the learned Judicial Magistrate to arrive at such a conclusion. That obviously the petitioner was nominated but the result of the investigation was manifestly in his favour and it has been said by the police that no evidence has been collected against him. That in case the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that there was evidence against him, he ought to have referred to that evidence while keeping in view the report of the police under reference. That this was a case of non‑reading of the report and a hurried decision on the administrative side which was passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate.

6. The matters are to be disposed of with reference to all facts even it is on administrative side like a refusal to discharge the accused.

7. The order being infirm, is set side and the case is remanded to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Section 30, Islamabad with directions that he may advert to all the facts of the case as well as the police report and the factum shown in the police report for coming to the conclusion whether the ‑petitioner ought to be discharged or not. The writ petition is accepted in these terms.

8. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Section 30, Islamabad, on the 23rd of July, 2001, who shell dispose of the matter by the 26th of July, 2001, through a written order, according, to the observations made hereinabove. The Investigating Officer is directed to produce the record before the said Magistrate on the aforementioned date. H.B.T./T‑68/L Order accordingly.