Prosecution

Prosecution was under the obligation to prove its case against the accused person at the standard of proof required in criminal cases, namely, beyond reasonable doubt standard, and could not be said to have discharged this obligation by producing evidence that merely met the preponderance of probability standard applied in civil cases

If the prosecution failed to discharge its said obligation and there remained a reasonable doubt, not an imaginary or artificial doubt, as to the guilt of the accused person, the benefit of that doubt was to be given to the accused person as of right, not as of concession.

Held, that though prosecution under Art. 155 of the Police Order, 2002 would require a report in writing by an officer authorized in said behalf under the rules made by the Government, yet registration of FIR and prosecution of offence were different phenomena

Article 155(2) of Police Order, 2002 did not require report of an authorized officer for initiation of prosecution only; therefore, initiation could be in many ways as understood through combined reading of Ss. 154, 155, 190 & 200 of Cr.P.C.

In the context of Art. 155(2) of Police Order, 2002, prosecution would mean institution and continuance of a criminal proceedings after framing of a formal charge before a competent Court and pursuing said proceedings until final judgment of acquittal or conviction

Merely registration of FIR could not be construed as "Prosecution" in terms of Art. 155(2) of Police Order, 2002.

Where State has responsibility to prosecute and procure punishment of a guilty person it also has equal responsibility that citizen is not denied from exercising or enjoying rights over his/her property, as enshrined in the Constitution.

On the basis of any report or on complaint, if Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority comes to a conclusion that any offence in terms of S.25 of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, has been committed by any undertaking, company, licensee, person regarding regulated activity, causing damage to any facility, plant, equipment, material or a property or stealing of petroleum, the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority can prosecute such person under the provisions of Ss. 25 & 26 of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002

No Court can take cognizance under S.29 of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance, 2002, of such offences.

In many cases prosecution must assign distinct roles played during the occurrence by the culprits for determination of their guilt as well as consequences thereof, however, there were cases in which totality of transaction may not warrant separability for such determination, e.g. cases involving abductions, dacoities and sudden assaults

Said offences more often than not, constituted episodes wherein different roles played by the culprits merged into integral totality of the crime, thus, it would be too harsh as well as unrealistic to demand (from the prosecution) exact re-enactment of roles by the witnesses

Capacities (of witnesses) even if intellectually sharp decreased drastically in calamitous situations, therefore, the administration of criminal justice, in such peculiar situations, had to be dynamically balanced upon fair trial without prejudice to the accused as well as due weightage to the prosecution evidence without being swayed by illusory notions, subjectively structured upon hypothetical beliefs.

Court, in the first instance, was to discuss and assess the prosecution evidence, in order to arrive at the conclusion as to whether or not the prosecution had succeeded in proving the charge against the accused on the basis of its evidence.

Prosecution, primarily was bound to establish guilt against accused without shadow of reasonable doubt by producing trustworthy, convincing and coherent evidence for conviction of accused person; from the evidence if it came to the conclusion that the charges so imputed against accused had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, then accused would become entitled to acquittal.

Prosecution against a person other than customer cannot be brought before Banking Court in terms of S. 20(1) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

In case prosecution is sought to be launched against a clerk or servant of customer or it is sought to be included in prosecuting any of bankers, agents, attorneys or brokers who have committed criminal breach of trust in respect of property, that may only be brought in terms of Ss. 408 & 409, P.P.C. and not under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

If prosecution is sought to be initiated by any other person other than a financial institution, it can only be done under general law and not under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

If Muqaddam appointed by Banker is sought to be prosecuted, no prosecution can be brought against Muqaddam under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and proceedings necessarily have to be initiated under general law.

Meaning.

Respondent-Drug Inspector found petitioner running his medical store in violation of provisions of Punjab Drugs Act, 1976, for which Quality Control Board first issued show-cause notice to him and then for no reply to said notice passed impugned order deciding to prosecute petitioner by lodging FIR

Petitioner contended that he had not received any show-cause notice as reflected from certificate issued by Postmaster, which provided that notice could not be delivered to him due to vague and incomplete address

Impugned order had been passed without providing opportunity of hearing to petitioner, and as such same was not sustainable

High Court, setting aside impugned order, directed department to issue fresh show-cause notice to petitioner

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Once Banking Court decrees suit of Bank only then bank is armed with unimpeachable evidence to get borrower declared as wilful defaulter

In absence of decree in favour of Bank, borrower cannot be declared wilful defaulter only on the basis of notice under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.

Word "Prosecution" as occurring in Art.13 of the Constitution would mean initiation or starting of proceedings of criminal nature before a court of law or a judicial Tribunal in accordance with the .procedure prescribed in the statute which creates offence.

Any individual who has been illegally dispossessed from his property has a right to have a recourse to the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, without prejudice to such other remedies that may be simultaneously available to him under the other laws.

Application for restoration of revision petition dismissed for non-prosecution-Revision petition was dismissed on 23-5-2008, while application for its restoration was filed on 4-3-2009

Plea of applicant's counsel was that due to sudden illness of his brother, he had to leave for place `L", where his brother died on 23-5-2009; and that such application could be filed within three years under Art. 181 of Limitation Act, 1908

Validity

Person seeking condonation of delay had not only to explain delay of each and every day to the satisfaction of Court, but had to establish that delay had been caused due to reason beyond his control

When delay in filing application was due to mere negligence and careless of applicant, who failed to pursue his case with due diligence, then he would not be entitled to any indulgence by Court

Applicant's counsel had failed to explain period from 24-5-2008 to 4-3-2009 for non-approaching Court or non-appearance of applicant in the matter

Applicant and his counsel had slept over and filed application with delay of more than nine months without disclosing reasons beyond their control

Application was dismissed in circumstances.

Any individual, who has been illegally dispossessed from his property, has a right to have a recourse to the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, without prejudice to other remedies simultaneously available to him under the other laws.

Application for restoration of suit dismissed on 12-12-2006 for non-prosecution-Plaintiff's plea that he was arrested on 22-6-2005 and released on 24-6-2009, thus, could not prosecute his suit

Validity

Such undisputed facts were sufficient cause, which prevented plaintiff to appear and prosecute his suit

Application for restoration of suit was accepted by restoring suit to its original position.

Object of prosecution is to punish a person for something he has done while the purpose of preventive detention is to prevent him from doing the act

Preventive detention checks on the future activities prejudicial to public order and public safety while criminal prosecution which is punitive in nature, prosecutes a person on the acts already committed by him

End purpose of making an order of detention is preventive while the purpose of criminal prosecution is punitive.

-Prosecution witness declared hostile-Statement normally loses all evidentiary value and can neither be used in favour nor against prosecution-Evidence Act (I of 1872), S. 154.

Not bound to produce as witness all persons who can give evidence regarding point in issue or relevant fact -Omission, on part of prosecution to examine persons having knowledge of fact in issue or relevant fact-Whether and when attracts provision of law contained in illustration (g), S. 114, Evidence Act (I of 1872).

Failing in part does not necessarily entail failure of entire case.

Duty to call and examine eye-witnesses mentioned in F. I. R. whether they support prosecution or not-Criminal Procedure Code (Y of 1898), S. 540.

Prosecution No duty to examine all persons witnessing occurrence.

Prosecution -Includes initiation or commencement of criminal proceeding and begins when formal charge exhibited against offender.

Evidence Act (I of 1872), Ss. 101 and 105.