2003 P Cr (PLP)
ASLAM AKBAR KAZI and 3 others — Applicants Versus GULZAR AHMAD CHANNA and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ASLAM AKBAR KAZI and 3 others — Applicants Versus GULZAR AHMAD CHANNA and another — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 P Cr (PLP) (ASLAM AKBAR KAZI and 3 others — Applicants Versus GULZAR AHMAD CHANNA and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 561-A & 198-A
Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.501
Application for quashing .of proceedings and order
Complainant who was Superintendent, Central Prison, had alleged that accused had published a news regarding commission of sodomy by warder of Jail on an under trial prisoner which news was baseless and amounted to defamation against complainant as public servant and if it was a case of defamation against the complainant as public servant complaint should have been filed by Public Prosecutor under S.198-A, Cr.P.C. with previous sanction of Government, but it had not been done so
Neither complaint was filed by a person authorized by law or one allegedly defamed, nor the Magistrate had mentioned that he found that offence was committed, impugned proceedings and order passed by the Magistrate were not in accordance with law
Order as well as proceedings before Magistrate, were quashed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Azeem Panhwar for A.-G. for the State. Through this application, the applicants seek quashment of the proceedings in Case No. 109 of 1994 in the Court of IInd Extra Joint Civil Judge and F.C.M., Hyderabad. The case was registered on a direct complaint made by present respondent Gulzar Ahmed Channa. Gulzar Ahmed Channa, the then Superintendent, Central Prison, Hyderabad made a complaint in the Court of IInd Extra Joint Civil Judge and F.C.M., Hyderabad, complaining that the accused were blackmailing, harassing and defaming him and the jail administration. The Magistrate recorded the statement of complainant and thereafter passed the following order:-- "Perused the statement of complainant. Admit. Register. Issue B. W. to the accused persons." Mr. Madad Ali Shah, learned counsel for the applicants submits that neither an enquiry was conducted to verify the allegations made in the complaint nor the order passed by the Magistrate shows that, prima facie, any offence has been committed by the present applicants. Mr. Muhammad Azeem Panhwar, learned State Counsel concedes that the order is defective and as it does not mention that any offence has been committed by the accused. Mr. Madad Ali Shah further submits that it is not the complainant who has been defamed in case the charge is of defamation and under section 198, Cr.P.C. a complaint can be filed only by the person defamed. The order passed by the Magistrate, obviously, does not mention that commission of any offence by the accused/present applicants was made out, prima facie, and the record shows that no enquiry was conducted to ascertain if any offence was committed. The complaint mentions that the accused published a news regarding commission of sodomy by Warder Wali Muhammad on U.T.P. Asif. The allegation was enquired into by the complainant and it was denied by the said persons. Neither Warder Wali Muhammad nor U.T.P. Asif filed the said complaint. If it was a case of defamation against the complainant as public servant, the complaint could have been field by the public prosecutor under section 198-A, Cr.P.C. with the previous sanction of the Government. Neither this complaint was filed by Public Prosecutor, nor there was a previous sanction of the Government for the purpose. Since neither the complaint was filed by a person authorized by law or one allegedly defamed, nor the Magistrate mentioned that he found that an offence was committed, the order passed by the Magistrate, with the proceedings in pursuance thereto, are not in accordance with law. The order as well as the proceedings before the Magistrate are quashed. Application is allowed accordingly. H.B.T./A-459/K Application allowed.