Cognizance of offence

Accused was arrested for selling varieties of therapeutic goods including allopathic drugs which were either unregistered, suspected to be spurious, lacked essential manufacturing and enlistment details or were without warranty

Accused sought bail after arrest on the plea that FIR was registered without following the prescribed procedure

Validity

In R.5(3) of Punjab Drugs Rules, 2007, use of word "shall" in phrases like "shall examine" and "shall issue a show cause notice" suggested that the provision was mandatory, requiring strict adherence

Although R.5 of Punjab Drugs Rules, 2007 does not explicitly outline penalties for non-compliance, its primary purpose is to protect individual rights by ensuring procedural fairness through issuance of show cause notice and opportunity to be heard

Failure to comply with R.5 of Punjab Drugs Rules, 2007 render any action taken as invalid

Order in the nature of writ of certiorari and mandamus is to foster justice and correct a wrong

Courts of law are not supposed to perpetuate what is unjust and unfair, instead they should explore ways and means to undo what was unjust and inequitable

High Court directed the authorities to release the petitioner and quashed the FIR

High Court directed the authorities to place the case before District Quality Control Board for de novo proceedings after issuing show cause notice under R.5(3) of Punjab Drugs Rules, 2007, to petitioner and affording him an opportunity of hearing

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

If complaint is made by authorized officer of 'appropriate government, which was the Federal Government in the instant case, only then Court has to take cognizance in the matter

If a complaint is made which results in registration of FIR, pursuant to complaint by any person other than persons provided in S. 13(3) of Official Secrets Act, 1923 and offence is made out, that would not be cognizable but only cognizable where government officer, duly authorized, has brought complaint to the Investigating Agency.

Complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is maintainable even where civil litigation is going on while a person can be tried under both kinds of proceedings (civil as well as criminal) which are independent of each other, therefore, a complaint cannot be dismissed summarily on the ground of maintainability due to existence of civil dispute between the parties.

Any act which entails civil liability under Civil Law as well as criminal penalty under Criminal Law such as Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, then a person can be tried under both kinds of proceedings, which are independent of each other

No one can be allowed to take law in his own hands and unlawfully dispossess an owner or lawful occupier of an immovable property and then seek to thwart the criminal proceedings against him under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, on the pretext that civil litigation on the issue is pending adjudication between the parties in a court of law

Irrespective of any civil litigation that may be pending before any Court, where an offence, as described in the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, has been committed, the proceedings under the said Act can be initiated as the same would be maintainable in law.

Police (S.H.O.) concerned had reported that the complainant was in possession of the land before the filing of complaint and that the respondents were in illegal possession of the same

Complainant had given the date and time of the alleged dispossession and had also given the account of incident wherein it was stated that about 20-30 persons had taken illegal possession of the subject land, constructed a room and the pictures were also tendered

No justification existed to dismiss the complaint in cursory manner by overturning the incriminating material which, prima facie, supported the alleged forceful dispossession

Constitutional petition was allowed, impugned order was set aside and the Trial Court was directed to decide the complaint in accordance with law.

Contents of the complaint were silent to the effect that why the complainant had kept mum for a period of four years after his illegal dispossession

Mode of dispossession was also not mentioned in the complaint

Long standing possession of accused was enough to hold that the accused did not belong to the class of property grabbers or qabza group

No case under S.3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was made out rather it appeared that the matter between the parties pertained to a dispute of civil nature

Appeal against conviction was accepted, in circumstances.

Main object and purpose of promulgation of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, is to curb the activities of the property grabbers

Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, applies only to dispossession from immovable properties by property grabbers/land mafia

Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, does not apply to the cases of dispossession by ordinary persons who cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be termed as land grabbers/land mafia/qabza group

Such disputes include disputes over possession of immovable properties between co-owners or co-shares, between landlord and tenants, between persons claiming possession on the basis of inheritance, between persons claiming to be the owners of the land on the basis of title documents in their favour or cases with a background of an ongoing private dispute over the relevant property.

Applicant assailed order passed by Trial Court whereby her application under S.265-K, Cr.P.C. for pre-mature acquittal was dismissed

Validity

Bare reading of S.265-K, Cr.P.C., revealed that it was not meant for cases registered upon complaint

Once cognizance was taken in terms of Ss.3 & 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, the complaint could not be dismissed summarily

Dispute between the parties could not be resolved under S.265-K, Cr.P.C., by acquitting the accused person

Revision application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Appeal against conviction was accepted, in circumstances.

Provision of S. 195, Cr.P.C. is one of the exception to the rule and in such case only public authority and Court concerned has right to file complaint.

Petitioner filed a complaint under Ss. 3, 4 & 5 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, with the claim that the respondent along with his companions, in his absence, broke the locks of his house and illegally occupied the same

Report of Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Station revealed that house in question was in possession of another person who had further rented it out to another

Trial Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the matter pertained to civil dispute

Validity

Petitioner had failed to make the said two persons as party in his complaint

Matter pertained to factual controversy which could be resolved after thorough inquiry and recording of evidence in a civil court

Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Complainant assailed order passed by Trial Court whereby his application under Ss. 3 & 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was dismissed

Complaint was filed through an attorney

Term 'attorney' legally, in most general sense drew a picture of one who was not speaking for himself but for his 'principal'

Criminal administration of justice recognized only those as a witness or complainant who either had seen; heard or least perceived any fact towards the offence, hence an 'attorney', being not speaking of his own knowledge, did not fall within the meaning of 'witness/complainant'

Attorney could not legally, under such status of attorney, file the FIR or a criminal complaint

Criminal lis or complaint could not be agitated or defended through 'attorney'

Appeal, in the present case, was filed much after the expiry period of limitation

Delay of each day in filing the appeal had to be reasonably explained, which the complainant could not

Complaint's Attorney had not brought on record a single stance to show as to whether he was occupying the subject property or was dispossessed

Lease, in the name of complainant, was not sufficient to fulfill the requirement of the law

Controversy between the parties was a dispute of civil nature for which parties had to approach the civil court

Trial Court had rightly dismissed the complaint

Appeal was dismissed.

Petitioners were aggrieved of call-up notices received by them pursuant to the inquiry initiated by National Accountability Bureau (NAB) against them under S.9(a)(iv) (xii) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, on a request made by a foreign government

Stance of parties was that the request was made on the basis of United Nations Convention against Corruption; however, petitioners asserted that the agreement/treaty could not form basis of the request as the same was never incorporated into municipal law and was not enforceable

Validity

International agreement/ treaty, unless made part of municipal law, was not enforceable by the courts of law and did not give rise to rights and obligations qua the citizens of Pakistan, however, non-incorporation of agreement/treaty into municipal law did not extinguish the obligations of Pakistan as one of the signatories

NAB could initiate an inquiry either on its own or on a complaint received from any person in the light of S.18(b) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Challenge to the inquiry proceedings, on account of non-incorporation of agreement into municipal law of Pakistan, was not made out, inasmuch as letters from foreign government could be treated as a complaint or even information for commencing inquiry by NAB on its own

Constitutional petitions were disposed of accordingly.

Applicant claimed that he had purchased the property from the original owner through a registered sale deed and that the respondent occupied the same when it was an open plot

Respondent claimed his right over the property through a sale agreement coupled with the registered power of attorney executed by the original owner

Applicant had stated in his complaint that the respondent had entered into the property after breaking the locks

Respondent could not be said to have occupied the property with some mens rea coupled with actus reus which was necessary ingredient for a criminal action against him

Fate of registered documents was required to be decided through a civil action, criminal action under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was not proper

Revision application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Stage of associating the respondents (proposed accused) in the proceedings had not yet arrived when the complaint was dismissed

Complainant had filed the criminal miscellaneous application against dismissal of his complaint and during its pendency, he expired

Held, had the respondents been acquitted by the Trial Court then the right would have survived in favour of the legal heirs of complainant

Filing of fresh criminal complaint was possible in the present case, which was dismissed at pre-trial stage

Second or subsequent complaint could, however, be filed on fresh facts and circumstances

Criminal miscellaneous application was disposed of by the High Court with the observation that the legal heirs of the deceased could file a fresh complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

Finding of investigating agency to place accused person in column No.2 by extending benefit of S.169 Cr.P.C. is not binding on Courts

Trial Court has legal competence under law to summon such accused if the Court is satisfied regarding his involvement in the case

Court can take cognizance of offence even in the case where a report for cancellation is submitted by police

Court while taking cognizance on a police report takes cognizance of the offence but not of a particular person charged in report as an offender

Trial Court can issue process against other accused persons who also appear to it to be connected with the offence on the basis of material placed before it.

Contention of applicants was that the complainant was a co-sharer in the property and that earlier a complaint with identical prayer was dismissed

Report of SHO revealed that the house built on a portion of the property was actually built by the deceased father of the parties and the report did not narrate about any dispossession from the same

Property had not been partitioned and suit for partition was pending adjudication

Some share of applicants in the disputed survey number was also admitted in the settlement agreement, earlier arrived at between the parties

Complaint regarding the same property had already been dismissed

Cognizance by Trial Court on almost same prayer clause was not warranted under the law

Criminal revision against impugned order was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioner filed application for bail before arrest before Anti-Terrorism Court and during its pendency filed application for transfer of case to regular court, which was dismissed

Plea of petitioner was that pendency of the bail application meant that court had taken cognizance inasmuch as it had applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case

Validity

Section 23, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 showed that where cognizance was taken and the court was of the opinion that it had no jurisdiction in the matter, it could order transfer of the case for trial to court of competent jurisdiction

Court could only transfer the case for trial after taking cognizance and not for any other purpose

Trial Court, in the present case, had not yet taken cognizance of the case and the stage for determination regarding transfer of the case for trial had not yet arisen, hence the application under S. 23, Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 was premature

Trial Court had rightly observed that investigation in the matter was underway and any finding/observation at bail stage regarding applicability of provisions of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 would amount to interfering in investigation

Constitutional petition, being without merit, was dismissed.

Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was a Special Law having overriding effect in the terms of its S.4 and had been promulgated to rid the people from menace of "Qabza groups" and land grabbers and also to protect the rights of owners and lawful occupants

Trial of accused under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 could not be equated with the trial in a complaint under S.190, Cr.P.C.

Accused persons were arrested on the FIRs directly registered with police stations without any direction from Ex-Officio Justice of Peace

Validity

Police officer was complainant in the case against each accused and he did not follow procedure under S.6 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Prohibition of Interest on Private Loans Act, 2016

None of the cases was registered under orders of Ex-Officio Justice of Peace to local police to register such case

Station House Officer of Police Station bypassed law in such behalf leaving scope for further inquiry into guilt of each accused

Bail was allowed in circumstances.

Election Commission declared B.A. degree of petitioner as forged, therefore, his election was declared void and criminal complaint against him was filed

Plea raised by petitioner was that tenure of Provincial Assembly of which petitioner was elected as a Member completed its term, therefore, Election Commission lacked jurisdiction to investigate allegations levelled against him

Validity

Election Commission did not lack jurisdiction as it had started action against petitioner in compliance with the directions of Supreme Court

When B.A. degree of petitioner was found bogus criminal proceedings were ordered to be initiated against him

No limitation existed for initiation of criminal proceedings against any accused of a cognizable offence

Election Commission, during thorough investigation, collected sufficient incriminating material/evidence to connect petitioner with commission of offence falling within the mischief of S.82 of Representation of the People Act, 1976

Action taken by Election Commission against petitioner was within the mandate given by Supreme Court

High Court did not find any legal or jurisdictional defect in the order calling for interference by High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Great caution and care is required by NAB authorities while initiating proceedings or authorizing inquiry or investigation against any person under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Some concrete material and evidence were necessary in support of the allegations against any person connecting with commission of a cognizable offence under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.

Complainant alleged that he was owner of property in question and sought recovery of the possession but complaint was dismissed by Trial Court

­Validity

For attracting provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and in order to get benefit of S. 3(1) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, complainant had to show befole Court that he was lawful owner or occupier of subject property and accused entered into or upon the property without having any lawful authority

Complainant was also to prove that accused had done so with intention to dispossess or to grab or to control or to occupy property in question

Contents of complaint did not have any such allegations which could fall within the ambit of Ss. 3 & 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

High Court declined to interfere in its revisional jurisdiction as no jurisdictional infirmity or any illegality was pointed out in the order passed by Trial Court

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Grievance of respondent was that petitioner who was a doctor fraudulently removed kidney of his servant on the pretext to conduct appendix surgery

On application filed by respondent, Ex-officio Justice of Peace directed to register a case against petitioner

Validity

Cognizance of offense under S.14 (2) (a) and (b) of Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 2010, could be taken by Court only on the complaint of Monitoring Authority or its Secretary or on the complaint of an "aggrieved person" who had given notice of not less than fifteen days to Monitoring Authority, of alleged offence and of his intention to lodge a complaint

Special law (Act) had provided special procedure for initiation of criminal proceedings against accused

When a thing was provided to be done in a particular manner, it was to be done in that manner and if it was not so done, it was illegal

Application moved by respondent who was not "aggrieved person" in any manner was not maintainable before Ex-officio Justice of Peace

High Court in exercise of powers under Art.199 of the Constitution, set aside order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace as the same was patently illegal and ultra vires

High Court advised that aggrieved persons could adopt remedy provided under the law

Petition was allowed under the circumstances.

Police finding accused innocent during investigation, released him under S. 169, Cr.P.C., but Magistrate taking cognizance of offence against all the accused persons, refused to release the accused (applicant)

Complainant, daughter of deceased, supported statement of accused (applicant) that he had been mistakenly implicated in the case, due to which she had lodged second FIR against real culprits

Validity

No eye-witness had implicated the accused (applicant)

Magistrate had not looked into record before him and passed impugned order without deliberating on statement of complainant

Judicial Magistrate was not bound to agree with report submitted by police under S. 173, Cr.P.C., and he was at liberty either to agree or disagree with conclusions reached by investigating officer subject to giving cogent reason for conclusion arrived at by him and his conclusion must have been laced with evidence showing application of judicial mind

Statements of eye-witnesses were sufficient to establish that prima facie prosecution had no evidence against the applicant to connect him with the case

Trial of applicant, in circumstances, would amount unnecessary harassment to him and proceedings before trial court would be abuse of process of law

High Court setting aside order of Magistrate quashed proceedings of trial to the extent of accused-applicant

Application was accepted accordingly.

Judicial Magistrate is not bound to agree with report submitted by police under S. 173, Cr.P.C., and he is at liberty either to agree or disagree with conclusions reached by investigating officer subject to giving cogent reason for conclusion arrived at by him and his conclusion must be laced with evidence showing application of judicial mind.

Provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, being a special law, was only applicable in cases, wherein the person complained against was found to be not having title thereto (property); that he had taken possession by use of force; that he had taken over the property without due course of law; and that such person or persons belonged to group of land grabbers

Application/ complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, could only be entertained, if there was prima facie material against nominated accused

Civil nature dispute, in no way could be allowed to be converted into criminal offence

Provision of S.3 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was applicable only to land grabbers

Court was required to examine as to whether case had been made out attracting the provision of the S.3 of the Act; that the property was movable property; that the person was the owner of the property, or same was in his lawful possession; that accused entered into or upon property unlawfully; and that such entry was with the intention to dispossess.

Responsibility has been placed on the highest office of National Accountability Bureau i.e. Chairman or his delegatee to scrutinize investigation before filing same in court

Law has further provided another measure in terms of S.18(a) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, by preventing Courts from taking cognizance of offence unless reference is made by ChairmanNationalAccountabilityBureauhimselforhis delegatee.

Cognizance in case of defamation could be taken where the defamatory statement was made at one place and was published in a newspaper in another place or the newspaper was published at one place and circulated in another place, a complaint might be instituted under S.500, P.P.C. in the courts having jurisdiction over both such places.

All courts that are empowered to record evidence, may it be in the exercise of civil, criminal, or revenue jurisdiction have independent jurisdiction to take cognizance of perjury committed in any proceedings before it

If offence of perjury is committed before more than one judicial forum or court, each judicial forum or court is competent to take cognizance in its own right

Cognizance of perjury by one court does not regulate or affect cognizance or otherwise of the offence by any other judicial forum or court.

Trial of an accused under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, cannot be equated as trial in a complaint case under S.190, Cr.P.C.

Court, under S.5 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, may order Incharge of Police Station to investigate the matter and report

Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, itself is a special law and overrides provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, in terms of S.4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

Complaint under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, can be equated as complaint under S.154, Cr.P.C., whereas report under S.5(1) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, can be equated as report under S.173, Cr.P.C.

Trial Court on perusal of such report and other material can take cognizance as provided under S.190, Cr.P.C. but in no way the complaint under S.5(1) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, can be equated with private complaint to be processed under S.200, Cr.P.C. before a Magistrate.

National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 being special law had introduced special procedure to initiate investigation, inquiry, arrest and taking cognizance of offences under Ordinance by the Accountability Court

Section 31-C had been incorporated in National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 to differentiate the offences under the said Ordinance relating to financial institutions within the domain of State Bank

Section 31-D of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 gave mandate to the Governor State Bank to file reference in respect of "imprudent loans", "defaulted loans" or "rescheduled loans" obtained from any financial institution

National Accountability Bureau had been ousted from initiating or conducting inquiry, investigation or proceedings in the cases, notwithstanding the procedure provided by S.18 of the Ordinance, had been followed properly, unless the Governor State Bank would make the reference in that regard

Special Prosecutor had conceded that reference had not been made by the Governor State Bank

Very initiation of inquiry/investigations and all proceedings including the arrest of the petitioners, in circumstances, was in violation and in derogation of mandatory provision of S.31-D of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Arrest of the petitioners, in circumstances was without lawful authority and nullity

Petitioners were ordered to be released from the judicial custody.

Ss. 4, 6, 7 & 5 [as amended by Marriage Functions (Prohibition of Ostentatious Displays and Wasteful Expenses) (Amendment) Act (IV of 2006)]

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199

Constitutional petition

Prohibition of ostentatious celebrations and prohibitions on wasteful expenses

Cognizance of offence

Cognizance of offence under Ss.3, 4 & 5 of Marriage Functions (Prohibition of Ostentatious Displays and Wasteful Expenses) Ordinance, 2000 could be taken on the complaint in writing by the. committee or the authorities mentioned in S.7 of the Ordinance

None else, except for the persons mentioned in S.7 of the Ordinance, could lodge a complaint

Marriage Functions (Prohibition of Ostentatious Displays and Wasteful Expenses) Ordinance, 2000 had prescribed a particular form and mode for taking cognizance of offences under Ss.3, 4 & 5 of the Ordinance, criminal cases were registered by the Police in neglect of S.9 of the Ordinance

Section 5 of the Ordinance to the extent of its repugnancy with S.4 (as amended) of the Ordinance was struck down by invoking the doctrine of implied repeal

District Police Officer would proceed in the F.I.Rs. in that respect according to the provisions of S.157(1)(b), Cr. P. C. and would finalize the matter expeditiously.

Deputy Director called the petitioner in his office and asked him about his assets in his name and induced petitioner to straightaway enter into some plea "bargain

Petitioner had challenged said action of the Deputy Director and sought declaration that unwarranted action of the Deputy Director was in flagrant violation of law and petitioner had prayed that he be restrained from achieving his nefarious designs; and calling petitioner in his office in the garb of authority and colourable exercise of power

Plea of petitioner was that under S.22 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, Chairman NAB could inquire into and investigate any suspected offender when involved in the commission of offence under said Ordinance and Deputy Director being official of Chairman NAB had no power or authority to call for information

Validity

Chairman NAB in writing could delegate powers and also authorize performance of any of his functions for carrying out the objectives of the Ordinance in view of S.34-A of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999

Chairman NAB in exercise of the vested powers, issued orders directing all Director-Generals to carry out functions for the smooth running of the objects of Ordinance, and for expeditious disposal of cases; which contained powers to refer matters to inquiry and investigation in terms of S.18-C of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.

Does not amount to taking of cognizance by Magistrate.