P L D 2009 Lahore 218 (PLP)
NOOR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus CHIEF PROSECUTOR GENERAL, PUNJAB and 5 others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2009 Lahore 218 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NOOR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus CHIEF PROSECUTOR GENERAL, PUNJAB and 5 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2009 Lahore 218 (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 P L D 2009 Lahore 218 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2009 Lahore 218 (PLP) (NOOR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus CHIEF PROSECUTOR GENERAL, PUNJAB and 5 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Farooq Hassan Naqvi for Petitioner.
- Ch. Irshad Ullah Chatha for Petitioner (in W. P. No.12508 of 2008).
- 4. After enactment of Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service, 2006, every man in the legal profession, one way or other, knows that Prosecutor-General is incharge of prosecution in the Province. The learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab has rightly pointed out section 9 of the above enactment, he is also supported by the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General. In the above circumstances, seeking opinion from DSP Legal, is either male fide or total ignorance of law of the concerned police officer.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 173
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Question was that whether after opinion of the Prosecutor General, submission of challan could be kept pending for seeking an opinion from DSP Legal and whether the same was required
Accused in initial investigation had been found innocent
Subsequently investigation was entrusted to SSP (Investigation)
Recommendation made by Deputy Prosecutor-General that accused be challaned and supplementary challan be submitted before the court, had been approved by the Prosecutor-General, Punjab, however, respondent police officer had moved an application for legal opinion from DSP Legal
Validity--Opinion of Investigating Officer would not make any accused person guilty or innocent as his job is only to collect some material and to place it before the competent court, which can declare an accused guilty or innocent, yet people waste time and delay legal proceedings to get favourable opinion of Investigating Officer
Prosecutor-General was incharge of prosecution in Punjab Province and he was duly supported by Deputy Prosecutor-General
Seeking opinion from DSP Legal in circumstances was either mala fide or based on total ignorance of law of the concerned police officer
DPO concerned was consequently directed to ensure that challan or supplementary challan be submitted in the court in the light of the final investigation conducted by SSP (Investigation) and approved by the Prosecutor-General
Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SHABBAR RAZA RIZVI, J.
According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General vide his note dated 15-3-2008 recommended that accused be challaned and supplementary challan be submitted before the competent court. The said recommendation was also approved by the Prosecutor-General, Punjab. The controversy relates to F.I.R. No.338 of 2005 dated 20-10-2005 at Police Station Civil Lines, Sialkot. In initial investigation, the accused were fond innocent. Subsequently, the investigation was entrusted to Ghulam Muhammad Kalyar, SSP/Investigation. However, respondent No.4 moved an application for legal opinion from DSP Legal.
2. The controversy is that whether after opinion of the Prosecutor-General, submission of challan could be kept pending on pretext of seeking an opinion form DSP Legal? 'Whether opinion of DSP Legal was required?
3. The people forget that opinion of first Investigating Officer or second Investigating Officer does not make any accused person guilty or innocent. The job of the Investigating Officer is to collect some material and to place it before the concerned court which decides after giving opportunity to the parties, the fate of a criminal case. Only a competent court can declare whether a person is guilty or innocent but not (a) Investigating Officer or (b) yet people waste time and delay legal proceedings to get favourable opinion of Investigating Officer. This point has been explained lucidly by a Full Bench of this Court reported in, PLD 2005 Lahore 470.
4. After enactment of Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service, 2006, every man in the legal profession, one way or other, knows that Prosecutor-General is incharge of prosecution in the Province. The learned Assistant Advocate-General, Punjab has rightly pointed out section 9 of the above enactment, he is also supported by the learned Deputy Prosecutor-General. In the above circumstances, seeking opinion from DSP Legal, is either male fide or total ignorance of law of the concerned police officer.
5. The Provincial Police Officer/IG Punjab is directed to seek explanation in this regard from Mehmood Ahmad Khan, S.I. Police Station Civil Lines Sialkot/SHO Civil Lines, Sialkot and DSP Legal, Sialkot. This writ petition is allowed. The DPO Sialkot is directed to make sure that challan or supplementary challan is submitted before the competent court in the light of the final investigation conducted by Ghulam Muhammad Kalyar, SSP/Investigation which was also approved by the Prosecutor-General vide order dated 1-3-2008. N.H.Q./N-1/L Petition allowed.