1990 P Cr (PLP)
FIRDOUS BARKAT ALI ‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1990 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Imam A& Kazi, J |
| Parties | FIRDOUS BARKAT ALI ‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Imam A& Kazi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 P Cr (PLP) (FIRDOUS BARKAT ALI ‑‑‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ‑‑‑‑Ss. 169, 161, 403 & 561‑A‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.406, 408, 420, 468, 471, 472 & 477‑A‑‑‑Quashing of second F.I.R.‑‑‑F.I.R. was investigated and a report under S.169, Cr.P.C. was submitted to the Ilaqa Magistrate intimating that sufficient evidence was not available to send up the accused for trial‑‑‑Written complaint giving certain fresh instances concerning the involvement of the accused was also filed‑‑‑Report under 5.169, Cr.P.C., held, was not conclusive and final and the accused could not take advantage of S.403, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Police was not debarred from continuing the investigation‑‑‑Second report could be competently lodged‑‑‑Trial Court was to decide whether the second report was a statement under 5.161, Cr.P.C. or a fresh complaint‑‑‑Petition for quashment was thus dismissed in limine: =‑[Investigation]. P L D 1967 Lah 588 ref IA. Hashmi for Applicant Imam Bux Shaikh for the State.
Judgment & Decree
2. Ultimately the case so registered was investigated by the C.IA. branch of the Sindh Police and one Mr. Abdul Jalil Inspector C.IA., Karachi submitted a report under section 169, Criminal Procedure Code on 5‑3‑1988 in the Court of Ilaqa Magistrate, Police Station Soldier Bazar (East) (C.IA.), Karachi intimating that no charge‑sheet against the present applicant could be submitted in that Court for lack of proper evidence. It was further pointed out in that report that during the course of the investigation the complainant could not produce relevant record to prove misappropriation by the accused.
3. Later on Ashraf Abbasi, the Deputy General Manager, Habib Exchange Ltd., Company, Kuwait addressed a letter, dated 5th November, 1988 to Deputy Inspector‑General Crimes, Sindh wherein further details of misappropriation by the applicant were given. This letter as is indicated was addressed as a matter of correspondence between they police and the said bank. Certain amounts misappropriated by the applicant are mentioned in it alongwith reference to relevant documents. On the basis of such a letter another First Information Report was registered under the same sections on 22‑11‑1988 by the same police station.
4. The present application has been filed under section 561‑A, Criminal Procedure Code for the quashment of the second First Information Report No.360/1988‑ ,
5. Mr. IA. Hashmi the Advocate for the applicant has mainly contended that the registration of two First Information Reports in respect of same offence is not possible under the law and in any case the second First Information Report can merely be treated as statement under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code. In support of his contentions he has relied upon a case reported in P L D 1967 Lah. 588. ,
6. Mr. Imam Bux Shaikh, appearing for the State opposes the application.
7. It appears that the police after investigating the offence registered as First Information Report No.226/1987 submitted a report under section 169, A Criminal Procedure Code on 5‑3‑1988 before the Magistrate having jurisdiction intimating that they did not have sufficient evidence to justify sending up of the accused person for trial. The Magistrate on this report recorded the following orders: `Seen. File. (Sd.) A.C.M. VII, F.IA./C.IA. East, Karachi. 8‑3‑1988."
8. It is only in cases where after investigation sufficient evidence is not collected to justify the forwarding of an accused to a competent Magistrate for trial and as a matter of interim measure such a report is required to be filed and accused is released on his executing a bond undertaking to appear before a competent Magistrate as and when required for his trial at a subsequent stage. It will thus be seen that such a report is not conclusive and final and such an accused person cannot take the advantage provided by section 403, Criminal B Procedure Code. In the instant case filing of report under section 169, Criminal Procedure Code will not debar the police from continuing with the investigating of the offence.
9. The second First Information Report, which was filed on the basis of the written complaint included certain fresh instances concerning the involvement of the present applicant. The second First Information Report in the circumstances could competently be lodged. In any event the argument that the second First Information Report is merely a statement of a witness under section 161, C Criminal Procedure Code can always be raised before the trial Court. And it is upto the trial Court to thrash out the facts and determine whether the second First Information Report would amount to a statement under section 161, Criminal Procedure Code or a new complaint giving information of newly detected instances of misappropriation.
10. In any case grounds urged in support of this application and the case stated in support thereof cannot be treated as the grounds for quashing the First Information Report. I had by a short order passed on 4‑6‑1989 dismissed the application in limine while above are the reasons for the same SA./F‑118/K Application dismissed in limine,