P L D 2006 Supreme Court 316 (PLP)
Syed MUHAMMAD AHMED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2006 Supreme Court 316 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Raja Fayyaz Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | Syed MUHAMMAD AHMED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2006 Supreme Court 316 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2006 Supreme Court 316 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Raja Fayyaz Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2006 Supreme Court 316 (PLP) (Syed MUHAMMAD AHMED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Zameer Zaidi, Advocate Supreme Court with Mahmudul Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Mian Ghulam Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court with Fateh Khan, A.S.I. for the State.
- Nemo for Respondent No.2.
- Syed Zahid Hussain Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court with Haji M. Rafi Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.3.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 420/467/468/471
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.4(1), 63, 173 & 190
Police Rules, 1934, R.24.7
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
High Court had directed that the petitioners before it in the constitutional petition who were accused persons in an F.I.R., would not be treated as accused and would not be challaned in the case, only because the Investigating Officer had informed the High Court that the involvement of the said accused persons in the case could not he established and that they had not forged any document or offered any kind of inducement to the complainant to secure any pecuniary benefit
Investigation according to S.4(1), Cr.P.C. only meant collection of evidence and no more
Determination of guilt or innocence of the accused persons was an obligation cast on the Courts of law which task could never be permitted to be delegated to the police officers investigating a case
Provisions of' S.63, Cr.P.C. had prohibited discharge of an accused person except under a special order of a 'Magistrate
Rule 24.7 of the Police Rules, 1934, had also prohibited cancellation of F.I.Rs without the orders of the Magistrate
Provisions of S.173, Cr.P.C. had provided only that after the available material had been collected by the S.H.O. during investigation, result of the same had to be reported to the Magistrate competent to take cognizance under S.190, Cr.P.C. and thereafter the Magistrate was to decide whether the accused did or did not deserve to be tried
Impugned order passed by High Court only on the alleged opinion of the Investigating Officer, therefore, was not sustainable and the same was set aside by converting the petition for leave to appeal into appeal which was allowed
S.H.O. was directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.
We are pained to see the impugned order wherein the learned Judge in Chamber had directed that the petitioners before his Lordship who were the accused persons of F.I.R. No.218 of Police Station Khushab would "not be treated as accused and would not be challaned" in the said case only because some S.I./I.O. had informed the learned High Court that the involvement of the said accused persons in the said case could not be established and further that the said accused persons had not forged any document or offered any kind of inducement to the complainant to secure any pecuniary benefit.
2. A bare perusal of section 4(1) of the Cr.P.C. should have been sufficient to acquaint us with the fact that the investigation only meant collection of evidence and no more. We need to remind ourselves and keep in mind that the determination of guilt or innocence of the accused person was an obligation cast on the Courts of law which task could never be permitted to be delegated to the Police Officers investigating a case. It was for this reason that the provisions of section 63 of the Cr.P.C. prohibited discharge of an accused person except under a special order of a Magistrate and likewise the provisions of Rule 24.7 of the Police Rules of 1934 prohibited cancellation of F.I.Rs. without the orders of a Magistrate.
3. The provisions of section 173,Cr.P.C. provide only that after the available material had been collected by the S.H.O. during the course of an investigation then the result of the same had to be reported to the c Magistrate competent to take cognizance under section 190, Cr.P.C. and thereafter it was for the competent Magistrate/Court to decide whether an accused person did or did not deserve to be tried.
4. In this view of the matter, we find that the impugned order passed by the learned High Court only on alleged opinion of an I.O. could not be sustained. This petition is, consequently, converted into an appeal which is allowed as a result whereof the said impugned order is set aside and the S.H.O. of the concerned Police Station is now directed to feel free to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. N.H.Q./M-40/S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed.