Section 154 - Criminal Procedure Code

Section 154 - Criminal Procedure Code - 1898

(Judgements)

Citation Name : 2025 PLD 36 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Side Appellant : BALQIAZ ALI SHAH alias ATTA ULLAH JAN

Side Opponent : WRASHEM GUL

Ss. 154 & 561-A---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 34---Quashing of FIR---Exceptional circumstances---Scope---Powers of the High Court---Scope---Of-course, the High Court has the powers to quash FIR but only in exceptional circumstances, i.e., where the allegations made in the FIR, on the face of it, do not constitute a cognizable offence, or the allegations made in the FIR are false or it reflects that an attempt has been made to convert civil liability into a criminal case, or where there is an express legal bar in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act, under which a criminal proceeding is instituted---Thus, the High Court has no jurisdiction, whatsoever, to take the role of the Investigating Agency and to quash the FIR, while exercising constitutional power under Art. 199 of the Constitution or under S. 561-A, cr.p.c ., unless and until very exceptional circumstances exist---Constitutional petition filed by accused, being merit-less, was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2025 PLD 36 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Side Appellant : BALQIAZ ALI SHAH alias ATTA ULLAH JAN

Side Opponent : WRASHEM GUL

Ss. 154 , 156, 169, 173 (3), 249-A, 265-K & 561-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 182---Quashing of FIR---Scope---Allegations against the petitioner/accused, on the face of it, did disclose commission of a cognizable offence---Under S. 154 , cr.p.c ., the Police has statutory duty to register FIR regarding commission of any cognizable offence, and its purpose is only to set the criminal law in motion---Provisions of S. 154 , cr.p.c ., are mandatory in nature---When FIR is registered, then the local Police under S. 156, cr.p.c have the statutory rights to investigate the case and interference by Court with duties of police is not permissible under the law---As FIR is not an encyclopedia of all the relevant facts, therefore, the image presented by the FIR will be clarified when all the incriminating material is brought on record during investigation and if the accused is found innocent during investigation, he can be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Ss. 169/173(3), cr.p.c ., read with Ss. 249-A/265-K. cr.p.c , besides pressing into service the punitive proceedings by sending a complaint under S. 182, P.P.C., against informer/complainant of the FIR---Therefore, it would be unjust, if before the real facts are collected by the investigating agency, the FIR alleging the commission of cognizable offences is nipped in the bud---Constitutional petition, being merit-less, was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2025 YLR 86 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Tariq Mehmood

Side Opponent : Additional Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace

Ss. 561-A, 22-A & 154 ---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 489-F---Inherent powers of High Court under S. 561-A, cr.p.c .---Scope---Powers of Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace for the registration of FIR under S.489-F, P.P.C---Petitioner assailed order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace and sought quashing of the same---Petitioner borrowed Rs. 400,000/- from complainant and issued post-dated cheque for its repayment, but it was dishonoured upon presentation due to insufficient funds---Petitioner neither disputed his signature on the cheque nor that it was drawn on his account---Section 154 , cr.p.c ., mandated the officer in charge of a police station to register FIR when informed about the commission of a cognizable offence---Officer in charge of a police station could not determine the veracity of the information/allegations at such stage---Application under S.22-A, cr.p.c ., submitted by complainant prima facie indicated the commission of a cognizable offence---Therefore, the SHO must proceed under S.154 , cr.p.c . and investigate the various aspects of the case---Impugned order did not require interference by the Court---Petition had no merit and was accordingly dismissed.

Citation Name : 2025 PCrLJ 447 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Shahzad

Side Opponent : Ex-Officio Justice of Peace

Ss. 22A & 22B--- Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.11---Ex-officio Justice of Peace, proceedings before---Principle of res-judicata--- Applicability--- Petitioner was aggrieved of dismissal of his complaint by Ex-officio Justice of Peace on the principle of res judicata--- Validity--- Principle of res judicata postulates that when parties have litigated a claim before a court of competent jurisdiction and it has finally decided the controversy, interest of State and of parties requires that validity of such claim and matters directly and substantially in issue in the action should not be litigated again by them or their representatives--- Ex-officio Justice of Peace exercised quasi-judicial functions under S.22-A(6) cr.p.c ., and principle of res judicata was applied to applications made to him seeking direction to officer in-charge of a police station to register FIR under S.154 cr.p.c .--- Such principle did not bar institution of a private complaint as it was an independent statutory remedy--- High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace as the same was based on correct application of law--- Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2025 YLR 782 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Mir SAIFULLAH MUGHERI

Side Opponent : Station House Officer, P.S HYDERI

Ss.22-A(6)(i), 22-B, 154 & 200---Application for registration of criminal case by the applicant disclosing a cognizable offence of stealing of dowry articles of his wife by the proposed accused i.e. his brother and nephew---Refusal of police to record statement---Applicant instead of availing alternate remedy of complaint had filed an application under Ss.22-A & 22-B, cr.p.c before Ex-officio Justice of Peace, which was dismissed on the grounds of inter se relation between the parties and conversion of a civil dispute over inherited property into criminal proceedings---Validity---High Court in view of prejudice of the police owing to earlier refusal to record statement of the applicant and dictum of the Supreme Court in similar circumstances observed that it would be appropriate for the applicant to institute a direct complaint before the court having jurisdiction, where he could lead entire evidence himself and his grievance could adequately be redressed---Application was dismissed.

Citation Name : 2025 YLR 187 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Mansoor Mujahid

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 302(b), 297 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, trespassing on burial places, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of two days in lodging the FIR---Accused were charged that they in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of the deceased by causing fire shot and dagger injuries and then poured acid on his dead body and then threw it in an open space---Admittedly, there was no eye-witness to the incident---Evidence of "SA" who happened to be the driver of the deceased with no driving license was to the extent that on 20.06.2013 he took the deceased and absconding accused Mst. "MZ" in car to the house/ apartment of appellant wherefrom he did not return---On inquiry, said witness was told by the appellants and the absconding accused Mst. "MZ" that the deceased had already gone; he intimated such fact to Mst. "N", then went to the house of deceased with his car and related such fact to wife of the deceased---On 21.06.2013, it was intimated to said witness by wife of deceased that she had received a message from absconding accused Mst. "MZ" that appellant had murdered the deceased---On such intimation, said witness and relatives of the deceased went to the Police Station and reported the incident there, which was done on 21.06.2013, with a delay of about one day of the actual missing of the deceased---Technically it was a First Information Report of the incident---Death of the deceased being unnatural was confirmed by Medical Officer with the narration that the time between the death of deceased and postmortem was about 36 to 48 hours---Investigating Officer further stated that he then recorded S.154 , cr.p.c statement of complainant; it was recorded on 22.06.2013 with a further delay of one day---Same was later on incorporated into FIR---Indeed, it was the Second Information Report of the same incident---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2025 PCrLJ 577 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Muhammad Yasir

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 302(b), 324, 109 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Lodging of FIR with promptitude---Accused was charged for committing murder of the wife of complainant by firing and also causing fire arm injuries to his brother---Record showed that the FIR was lodged after six hours of the incident however based on the particular facts and circumstances of the case, it was found that the delay in lodging the FIR had been explained and was not fatal to the prosecution case---Complainant received a phone call about the incident who then rushed to the scene of occurrence where he found that the Mohalla people had taken his wife (deceased) to the hospital and thus he then went straight to the hospital where he recorded his S.154 cr.p.c statement before the police which was the basis of the FIR---As such there was no time for the complainant to cook up a false case against the appellant---Appellant was named in the promptly lodged FIR with the specific role of murdering the deceased by firearm and causing firearm injury to injured---Even otherwise no specific/proven enmity had come on record between the appellant and the complainant or any witness which would motivate him/them to lodge a false case or give false evidence against the appellant---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2025 PCrLJ 203 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Johan Masih

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 397 & 34---Robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---First Information Report lodged with promptitude---Accused was charged for robbing the complainant at gun point and was apprehended at the spot---Record showed that the S.154 cr.p.c statement was lodged on the spot immediately after the incident which led to the FIR being lodged within one hour---Hence there was no delay in the lodgment of the FIR---Appellant was arrested on the spot by the police from whom the stolen items and an unlicensed pistol was recovered, and he was named in the promptly lodged FIR with the specific role of robbing the complainant by show of firearm---Even otherwise no specific/proven enmity had come on record between the appellant and the complainant or any witness which would motivate him/them to lodge a false case or give false evidence against the appellant---Circumstances established that prosecution had proved its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2025 PCrLJ 203 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Johan Masih

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 397 & 34---Robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account proved---Accused was charged for robbing the complainant at gun point and was apprehended at the spot---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by complainant, his fiancé and a Patrolling Officer---Complainant was an independent eye-witness and he had no relationship with the accused and had no ill will or enmity with him so as to involve him in a false case---Promptly lodged S. 154 cr.p.c statement was not materially improved upon during the course of evidence of complainant---Complainant was not damaged during a lengthy cross-examination---Items which were robbed from complainant were recovered when he was arrested on the spot together with an unlicensed pistol hence the question of misidentification did not arise---Fiancé of complainant who was with the complainant at the time of robbery corroborated the complainant in all material respects---Said witness was an independent witness who had no reason to falsely implicate the accused in the crime---Statement of said witness under S.161, cr.p.c was made within a day of the incident and her evidence was not materially improved from the same which was found to be trust worthy, reliable and confidence inspiring and hence Court believed her evidence and placed reliance on it---Patrolling Officer was informed of the incident and then he was able to grab hold of the accused while he was trying to make his escape good on foot whilst the other two persons made their escape good---Pistol used in the robbery was recovered from the accused when he was arrested on the spot along with the robbed items---All the witnesses were consistent in their evidence and even if there were some contradictions in their evidence, they were minor in nature and not material and certainly not of such materiality so as to effect the prosecution case and the conviction of the appellant---Evidence of the witnesses provided a believable corroborated unbroken chain of events from the complainant and his fiancé going out on a motor bike to the beach to them being intercepted by three others on a motor bike and robbed at gun point to the police arresting the accused on the spot with the unlicensed pistol and items which had just been robbed form the accused---It was true that there was no independent mashir however it had now become a judicially recognized fact that in such like cases independent members of the public did not want to involve themselves---As such the fact that there were no independent mashirs in the present case was not of huge significance especially when the eye-witness evidence was believed and the eye-witnesses were independent witnesses---Circumstances established that prosecution had proved its case against the appellant beyond shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2025 MLD 165 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Badar-ud-Din

Side Opponent : Senior Superintendent of Police, Shikarpur

Ss. 22-A & 561-A---Powers of Justice of Peace under S.22-A, cr.p.c .---Scope---Petition filed under S.22-A, cr.p.c , by the respondent for the registration of criminal case was accepted by the Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Validity---Contents of the application demonstrated that the Police Officials took away uncle of the complainant from an ice stall in the presence of witnesses on the charges that he was facilitator of some criminals---As a result, the accused discharged two firearm shots; one struck left knee, while the second shot impacted left thigh of injured---Conclusive medical certificate issued by the Medical Legal Officer confirmed the injuries, which constituted a cognizable offence---Private respondents had not denied the injuries sustained by the injured, but their counsel submitted that due to a police encounter, the injured passer-by had suffered injuries---Police had registered the FIR and the direction for the registration of a second FIR was not permissible under the law---First Information Report was examined, in which the place of incident and time of occurrence were completely different from the time and place of the incident shown by the present applicant in the memo. of application under S.22 a-6(1), cr.p.c .---Therefore, it could be safely said that two separate incidents required separate registration of FIR to let the investigation come into motion---Under S.22-A, cr.p.c ., it was not the duty of the Justice of Peace to meticulously examine or make determinations on the merits of the case---Instead, the Justice of Peace was required to ascertain whether the facts presented in the application established a cognizable offence---If a cognizable offence was found, the Justice of Peace was authorized to direct that the complainant's statement be recorded pursuant to S.154 , cr.p.c .---Such powers were confined to facilitating and supporting the administration of the criminal justice system---Detailed examination of the case and conducting a fact-finding investigation were not part of the functions of a Justice of Peace---Rather, the Justice of Peace was tasked with addressing the grievance of a complainant who had been aggrieved by a Police Officer's refusal to register his report---Application was accordingly dismissed.

Citation Name : 2024 SCMR 1123 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : Syed QAMBER ALI SHAH

Side Opponent : PROVINCE OF SINDH

S. 22-A---Justice of Peace - Powers and function---Under section 22-A, cr.p.c , it is not the function of the Justice of Peace to punctiliously or assiduously scrutinize the case or to render any findings on merits but he has to ensure whether, from the facts narrated in the application, any cognizable case is made out or not; and if yes, then he can obviously issue directions that the statement of the complainant be recorded under Section 154 , cr.p.c .---Such powers of the Justice of Peace are limited to aid and assist in the administration of the criminal justice system---He has no right to assume the role of an investigating agency or a prosecutor but has been conferred with a role of vigilance to redress the grievance of those complainants who have been refused by the police officials to register their reports---If the Justice of Peace will assume and undertake a full-fledged investigation and enquiry before the registration of FIR, then every person will have to first approach the Justice of Peace for scrutiny of his complaint and only after clearance, his FIR will be registered, which is beyond the comprehension, prudence, and intention of the legislature---Minute examination of a case and conducting a fact-finding exercise is not included in the functions of a Justice of Peace but he is saddled with a sense of duty to redress the grievance of the complainant who is aggrieved by refusal of a Police Officer to register his report.

Citation Name : 2024 SCMR 1123 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : Syed QAMBER ALI SHAH

Side Opponent : PROVINCE OF SINDH

Ss. 154 , 155 & 200---Officer Incharge of a Police Station---Receipt of information about commission of an offence---Any time, an Officer Incharge of a Police Station receives some information about the commission of an offence, he is expected first to find out whether the offence disclosed fell into the category of cognizable offences or non-cognizable offences---There is no provision in any law, including Section 154 or 155 of the cr.p.c ., which authorizes an Officer Incharge of a Police Station to hold any enquiry to assess the correctness or falsity of the information before complying with the command of the said provisions---He is obligated to reduce the same into writing, notwithstanding the fact whether such information is true or otherwise---Condition precedent for recording an FIR is that it should convey the information of an offence and that too a cognizable one---Remedy of filing a direct complaint cannot measure or match up to the mechanism provided under section 154 , cr.p.c ., in which the Officer Incharge of a Police Station is duty bound to record the statement and register the FIR if a cognizable offence is made out---If in each and every case it is presumed or assumed that instead of insisting or emphasizing the lodgment of an FIR, the party may file a direct complaint, then the purpose of recording an FIR, as envisaged under section 154 , cr.p.c ., will become redundant and futile and it would be very easy for the police to refuse the registration of an FIR with the advice to file direct complaint---However, in some exceptional circumstances, the alternate remedy in the shape of direct complaint may be availed but not in every case.

Citation Name : 2024 MLD 1955 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Side Appellant : Ejaz

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 35 & 397---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302(b), 324, 427 143, 147, 399, 353 & 34---Pakistan Arms Ordinance (XX of 1965), S. 13---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, mischief causing damage, rioting, attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, common intention---Punishment---Concurrence of sentences---Four separate trials---Principle of hardship---Applicability---Serving of 10 years' sentence---Effect---Petitioner was convicted in four different cases and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and other imprisonments---Petitioner sought his sentences in all the four trials to run concurrently---Validity---Section 397, cr.p.c , demonstrates that when a convict is serving his substantive sentence of imprisonment and subsequently is convicted in another offence or trial, the Court has the discretion to consolidate the computation of several sentences passed in different cases---Perusal of the nominal role of convict submitted by the concerned Jail Authority revealed that the accused had been awarded a sentence of thirty-seven (37) years with a fine of Rs. 154 ,000/- or in default of payment of fine, to suffer imprisonment for eighteen (18) months in the said cases---Accused had served ten (10) years and earned eight (08) years, five (05) months, seventeen (17) days remission, while eighteen (18) years, ten (10) months and thirteen (13) days were remaining---Aim of imprisoning a person is to reform him in the period of incarceration, so he may join the society as a peaceful and law-abiding citizen---In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, the case of accused was one of hardship, as such, he was entitled to the relief claimed for---Criminal Miscellaneous was allowed, consequently, the sentences awarded to the accused in all the four cases were ordered to run concurrently with benefit of S.382-B cr.p.c .

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 722 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SOHAIL

Side Opponent : STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION, PESCO, PESHAWAR

Ss. 462-I & 462-O [as inserted through Criminal Law (Amendment) Act (VI of 2016)]---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 173 & 190---Theft of electricity---Quashing of the FIR sought---Distribution Company ('DISCO') as complainant---Contention of the petitioner/ accused was that the offence being non-cognizable the Court could only take cognizance of the matter on a complaint in terms of S. 462-O of the P.P.C., therefore, the registration of FIR be quashed---Validity---Word 'shall' used in S. 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 ('cr.p.c .') manifested that the intention of legislature was that the said provision was mandatory and on receiving the information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence, the police officer was required to register the FlR---Effect of insertion of S. 462-O, P.P.C. would be that the police after registration of the case and completion of investigation would not be competent to file a Challan before the Court in terms of S. 173, cr.p.c . but the Court would take cognizance of the matter on the complaint made by the authorized officer of the Distribution Company ('DISCO')not below Grade-17 by recording reasons for submission of complaint, therefore, it was evident from the said procedure that the Police Officer on receiving any complaint regarding the theft of electricity shall register a case, investigate the matter, however, for submission of the final report, instead of the mechanism provided under S. 173, cr.p.c ., he will place the same before the authorized officer of the DISCO, who after scrutinizing the investigation report shall submit a complaint before the competent Court of law---It was because S. 462-O, P.P.C., started with non-obstante clause which meant that the mechanism of taking cognizance before the Court would be through filing of a complaint and not by submitting of challan in terms of S. 173 read with S. 190, cr.p.c .---However, for taking cognizance, Court required complaint/sanction of a Central or Provincial Government or authorized officer at the time of framing charge---Constitutional petition filed by the accused for quashing of the FIR was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 351 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : ARSALAN RAZA

Side Opponent : JUSTICE OF PEACE

Ss. 22-A, 22-B, 154 , 156 & 157---Police Rules, 1934, R. 24.4---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---First Information Report, registration of---Principle---Inquiry before registration of case---Scope---Petitioner was aggrieved of dismissal of his application under S. 22-A(6), cr.p.c . by Ex-officio Justice of Peace refusing to issue direction to register a criminal case against accused persons---Validity---Provision of S. 157, cr.p.c . read with R. 24.4 of Police Rules, 1934 could not be employed before registration of criminal case under S. 154 , cr.p.c .---When information of cognizable offence was received by Station House Officer (SHO), he could not embark upon inquiry to examine reliability or credibility of such information to refuse registration of criminal case---Station House Officer was under statutory duty to register criminal case and then to proceed with investigation, if he had reason to suspect commission of an offence---Station House Officer was empowered under S. 156, cr.p.c . to investigate, subject to proviso (b) to S. 157(1), cr.p.c . read with R. 24.4 of Police Rules, 1934, whereby investigating officer had ample power to dispense with investigation altogether---High Court set aside order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace as the same was illegal and unwarranted---High Court directed SHO to register criminal case on the information of petitioner, clearly disclosing commission of cognizable offence, already furnished to him---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 82 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : ALI AHSAN alias SUNNY

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay in lodging FIR---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of the son of the complainant by inflicting knife blows---Deposition of Investigating Officer revealed that he took 55 minutes to record the complainant's statement, prepare the inquest report, etc.---After the preparation of the inquest report, etc. within 55 minutes, the Investigating Officer sent the oral complaint to the police station for the recording of FIR---Said fact revealed that before the registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer conducted a partial investigation---Admittedly, a statement under S. 154 , cr.p.c ., of the complainant was not incorporated in the register for FIRs registration---Police Officer deposed during examination-in-chief that on receiving the oral complaint, endorsed and dispatched by the Investigating Officer through Police Constable, he dictated the FIR to the Computer Operator, who typed it without any addition or deletion---Prosecution had not produced the Computer Operator to whom dictation was given by Police Officer, whereafter he typed the FIR---First Information Report was not entered into the register, suggesting that FIR was not chalked out as stated---Evidential value of the FIR would be reduced if it was made after an unexplained delay, particularly when the same was not entered in the printed form as per Police Rules, 1934---Circumstances established that the prosecution had not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2024 YLR 2511 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Sartaj alias Sartaja

Side Opponent : State

S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the paternal uncle of complainant by firing---Ocular account of the incident had been furnished by complainant, and the son and nephew of the deceased---From the evidence it transpired that complainant was related to the deceased and that there appeared to be some disputes between the accused and the deceased, however the complainant/eye-witness had no dispute or enmity with the accused---Thus, mere relationship of witness to the deceased was no reason to discard his evidence which had to be judged on its own worth---From the evidence of said eye-witness, it was clear that he knew the accused before the incident and it was a day light incident from relatively closed range and thus there was no case of mistaken identity and no need to hold an identification parade in order to determine the identity of the accused---Presence of said witness at the scene was corroborated by other witnesses---Said eye-witness was not a chance witness and he lived in the area and had every reason to accompany the deceased who was his uncle, to see his plot along with other relatives---Said witness gave his S. 154 cr.p.c statement within one hour and 45 minutes of the incident which was not significantly improved on during his evidence---Said witness named the accused in his FIR along with the other eye-witnesses---Complainant gave his evidence in a natural manner and was not dented at all during cross-examination and as such his evidence was found to be reliable, trust worthy and confidence inspiring especially in respect of the identity of the accused---Accused could be convicted on the evidence of such eye-witness alone though it would be of assistance by way of caution, if there was some corroborative/supportive evidence---Other eye-witness was the son of deceased and his evidence corroborated complainant's evidence in all material aspects---Said witness was named in the FIR as an eye-witness---Another eye-witness was a nephew of the deceased and his evidence corroborated complainant and evidence of son of deceased in all material respects---Said witness was named in FIR as an eye-witness and his S. 161 cr.p.c statement was recorded on the same day of the incident on which no material improvements were made during his evidence---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2024 YLR 2511 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Sartaj alias Sartaja

Side Opponent : State

S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Slight delay in lodging FIR plausibly explained---Accused was charged for committing murder of the paternal uncle of complainant by firing---First Information Report was lodged with promptitude after only one hour and 45 minutes of the incident---Such slight delay was caused because the complainant took the deceased to hospital for treatment in order to save his life and it was during that time at the hospital that he gave his S.154 cr.p.c statement which later became the FIR and as such he had no time to consult with the police or anyone else in order to cook up a false case against the accused---Complainant's mind would have been in turmoil following the incident and at that point in time his main concern would have been the condition of his seriously injured uncle rather than putting together a false narrative in order to implicate the accused---Thus, it was found that there had been hardly any delay in lodging the FIR and even such slight delay had been fully explained---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2024 YLR 811 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : SOHAIL AHMED SIDDIQUI

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Memo of inspection of the place of occurrence---Doubtful---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused made firing upon complainant party due to which three persons died and complainant along with one other person became injured---Record showed that memo of inspection of the place of occurrence was prepared at 2300 hours on 03.12.2013, statedly in presence of complainant---Admittedly the complainant at the relevant time was admitted in injured condition at hospital, at 2140 hours his statement under S.154 , cr.p.c ., was recorded by SIP, which was incorporated in the FIR by him at 2210 hours thus how was it possible that after 50 minutes, the complainant who was under treatment at hospital was be able to accompany the police and act as mashir to the memo of inspection of the place of incident---Inspection of place of incident was carried out by SIP "S" whereas it was signed by SIP "I"---Such memo apparently appeared to be a bogus, concocted and fabricated document, as such, it carried no legal value in the eyes of law and could not be relied upon---Preparation of such type of memo was an example of mala fide on the part of Investigating Officer who conducted defective investigation of a heinous offence for the reasons best known to him---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to bring home the guilt to the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2024 YLR 670 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD NAWAZ

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 302(b), 324, 353, 393 & 427---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S.23(1)(a)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, robbery, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, possessing illicit weapon, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of eleven hours in lodging the FIR explained satisfactorily---Accused while committing robbery made firing upon guards and police, due to which one guard was injured and SIP died; police also made firing in retaliation, due to which two culprits sustained injuries and later on one died---Record showed that the FIR was lodged after a delay of eleven hours---Reason for the delay in lodging the FIR was that the complainant had to secure the site, take the injured to hospital which included the accused and his accomplice who later died of his injuries and the deceased who died after he was transferred to the hospital from the Medical Center on the same day, thus, the complainant's priority was to save life---Once that was done he returned to the Police Station and recorded his S.154 , cr.p.c statement which later became the FIR---Therefore, the delay in lodging the FIR was fully explained---Prosecution had not been benefited by the delay in lodging the FIR and the accused had not been prejudiced as they were both arrested on the spot in injured condition so there was no time for the police to cook up a false case against them---Furthermore, the complainant had no enmity with the accused and had no reason to falsely implicate him and as such the delay in lodging the F.I.R was not fatal to the prosecution case as the delay had been explained--- Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt, however, due to some extenuating circumstances, death sentence was converted into imprisonment for life---Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Citation Name : 2024 SCMR 1123 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : Syed QAMBER ALI SHAH

Side Opponent : PROVINCE OF SINDH

Citation Name : 2024 SCMR 1123 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : Syed QAMBER ALI SHAH

Side Opponent : PROVINCE OF SINDH

Citation Name : 2024 MLD 1955 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Side Appellant : Ejaz

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 722 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SOHAIL

Side Opponent : STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION, PESCO, PESHAWAR

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 351 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : ARSALAN RAZA

Side Opponent : JUSTICE OF PEACE

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 82 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : ALI AHSAN alias SUNNY

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2024 YLR 2511 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Sartaj alias Sartaja

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2024 YLR 2511 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Sartaj alias Sartaja

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2024 YLR 811 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : SOHAIL AHMED SIDDIQUI

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2024 YLR 670 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD NAWAZ

Side Opponent : State

Citation Name : 2024 YLR 470 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SOHAIL alias KALOO alias FAHAD

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 336-B & 337-L(2)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Hurt by corrosive substance (acid), causing hurt, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of one month in lodging FIR---Inconsequential---Accused was charged for sprinkling acid on the face of complainant, due to which, his face, neck, eyes and hands were burnt---Record showed that the FIR was lodged after a delay of one month, however that delay was not fatal to the prosecution case as the delay in lodging the FIR had been fully explained that the complainant was confined in hospital with serious burn injuries to his face including his mouth, which precluded him from speaking and that as soon as he was well enough he recorded his S. 154 , cr.p.c . statement which was converted into the FIR in this case---Thus, the delay in lodging the FIR was not found to be fatal to the prosecution case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt but due to non-production of mobile phones and CDR data, the sentence of the accused under S. 336(b), P.P.C, was reduced from life imprisonment to 14 years imprisonment---Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Citation Name : 2024 YLR 470 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SOHAIL alias KALOO alias FAHAD

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 336-B & 337-L(2)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Hurt by corrosive substance (acid), causing hurt, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account believable---Accused was charged for sprinkling acid on the face of complainant, due to which, his face, neck, eyes and hands were burnt---Neither witness nor the complainant who lost his eye sight during the acid attack by the accused were dented during lengthy cross-examination---Evidence of said witnesses had not significantly improved upon their S. 161, cr.p.c . statements and S.154 cr.p.c statements respectively---Said witnesses had given their evidence in a straightforward and natural manner and in their evidence they were fully corroborative of each other in respect of meeting each other at school; falling in love; arranging a marriage with the consent of their parents; how the accused entered the picture and fell obsessively in love with lady witness; how accused threatened complainant to leave lady witness for him right up to the time when complainant saw the accused who he knew from the super market threatening phone calls of accused and throwing acid in complainant's face out of jealousy---Neither lady witness nor complainant had any ill will or enmity with the accused which would lead them to falsely implicate the accused in the case---Accused was named in the FIR with the specific role of throwing acid/corrosive substance on the face of complainant---Evidence of said witnesses was found to be reliable, trust worthy and confidence inspiring and thus believable---Eyewitness corroborated the evidence of complainant in all material respects concerning the incident---Said witness was the eye-witness who saw the accused after throwing the acid on the complainant and running away from the house---Said witness lived at the house and was not a chance witness---Admittedly, eyewitness was related to the complainant however he had no ill will or enmity with the accused and as such his evidence could be safely relied upon---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt but due to non-production of mobile phones and CDR data, sentence of the accused under S. 336(b), P.P.C., was reduced from life imprisonment to 14 years imprisonment---Appeal was dismissed with said modification in sentence.

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 1349 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Summair

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 302(b), 392, 396, 397 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, dacoity with murder, robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---First Information Report lodged with promptitude---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused committed murder of the brother of complainant by firing while committing robbery---Record showed that the statement of the complainant which became FIR was recorded just ten minutes after the incident as the complainant had chased down the accused and apprehended him with members of the public just after the robbery and murder of the deceased---Police recorded statement of complainant under S.154 , cr.p.c , on the spot and formal FIR was lodged one hour later---Thus, the FIR was lodged with extreme promptitude and left no time for the complainant to cook up a false case against the accused in league with the police or anyone else---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 982 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Qadir Bakhsh alias Dau

Side Opponent : State

S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Natural witnesses---Presence of eye-witnesses at the time and place of occurrence proved---Accused was charged for committing murder of the cousin of complainant by hitting him with a brick---Complainant/eyewitness was not a chance witness as he lived in the area and had every reason to be where he was at the time of the incident---Complainant gave his S. 154 , cr.p.c statement with promptitude and had no time to cook up a false case against the accused who he had no enmity or ill will with any way, which might lead him to falsely implicate the accused in this case---Complainant's S. 154 , cr.p.c statement was not materially improved upon during the course of his evidence---Complainant named the accused in his FIR along with a specific role and he gave his evidence in a natural manner and was not dented at all during a lengthy cross-examination---Thus, the evidence of complainant was found to be reliable, trust worthy and confidence inspiring and had to be believed especially in respect of the identity of the accused who hit and murdered the deceased with a brick---Conviction could be made on the evidence of complainant alone though it would be of assistance by way of caution if there was some corroborative/supportive evidence---Evidence of the complainant was found to be of good quality and believable---Other eye-witness was an independent witness who was not related to either the deceased or the accused---Said witness had no enmity with the accused or any other reason to implicate the accused in a false case---Said witness knew the accused before the incident which occurred at 11.30 am in broad day light when there would have been sufficient light to easily identify the accused---Eye-witness was not a chance witness as he owned the shop in front of which the incident took place---Said witness gave his S. 161 cr.p.c statement within a day and had no time to cook up a false case against the accused who he had no enmity or ill will with any way which might lead him to falsely implicate the accused in this case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 813 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD YASIR KHAN

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account proved---Accused were charged that they in furtherance of their common intention committed murder of the deceased who was accompanying the complainant---Ocular account of the incident was primarily furnished by three witnesses---Presence of the three eye-witnesses was not disputed by the accused persons, rather they had admitted the quarrel took place between the parties through their statements filed before the Trial Court---When the statement of complainant under S. 154 , cr.p.c ., was put in juxtaposition with his depositions recorded before the trial Court and depositions of two eye-witnesses, they perfectly aligned with each other from minor details to major events such as the presence of accused---Witnesses were in comfortable unison on all the salient aspects of the incident as well as details collateral therewith---Cross-examination remained inconsequential inasmuch as nothing adverse could be solicited from the witnesses except for a volley of suggestions, vehemently denied---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused persons--- Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2024 PCrLJ 790 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : ABID

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 302(b), 363, 365-A, 376(ii) & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping, kidnapping or abducting with intent to secretly and wrongfully confine person, kidnapping or abducting a person under the age of fourteen, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Improvements made by the complainant in his statement---Effect---Accused were charged for committing rape with the daughter of the complainant after kidnapping her---In the FIR registered against unknown persons, there was no mention by the complainant that anyone, let alone the accused persons, had made a ransom demand for the safe return of his daughter---Complainant had nothing to fear by adding that aspect of the case in his S.154 , cr.p.c . statement as he knew his daughter was already dead and as such he had nothing to lose by mentioning the ransom demand from three unknown persons in his S.154 , cr.p.c statement---In fact on 02.08.2015 one of the accused persons was arrested on the assertions of the original accused who was being interrogated in police custody in respect of the crime on 01.08.2015, who the accused persons claimed in their S.342, cr.p.c . statements was the real accused but was let off after paying a bribe---After the arrest of one of the accused persons for the crime that in the further statement made by the complainant on 03.08.2015 the story of a ransom demand from three unknown persons surfaced which appeared to be based on the particular facts and circumstances of the case to be manufactured and as such little reliance could be placed on the so called eye-witness evidence of the complainant---Such a material improvement in the further statement of the complainant after arrest of one of the accused persons casted serious doubt on his entire evidence as it was a massive, significant and dishonest improvement in the context of the case---Circumstances established that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond shadow of any doubt---Appeal against conviction was accordingly allowed.

Citation Name : 2024 YLR 1037 ISLAMABAD

Side Appellant : FAISAL HAYAT

Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/EX-OFFICIO JUSTICE OF PEACE, ISLAMABAD (WEST)

S.154 ---Police Rules, 1934, R. 24.5---Expression 'registration of an FIR'---Preliminary inquiry---Object, purpose and scope---Provision of S. 154 , cr.p.c ., only requires that substance of information of commission of cognizable offence is to be recorded in a book provided for such purpose---Expression 'registration of an FIR' has acquired loose meaning in our jurisprudence whereby, as it were, the tail wags the dog, and it is expected that the only book for the purpose is the FIR register in Form No. 24.5(1) stipulated under R. 24.5 of Police Rules, 1934---Such conceptual misunderstanding has led to an abuse of expression 'FIR' to the extent that it has become a tool for people to settle their scores and it reduces police to a mere rubber stamp at preliminary stage for being expected to 'register the FIR' and proceed to arrest straightaway---Police is bound to record, immediately on receipt, the substance of information of commission of cognizable offence in police station daily diary---There is no restriction on police carrying out preliminary inquiries thereafter before recording information (along with such additional information that police may have gathered on preliminary inquiries) in FIR Register under R. 24.5 of Police Rules, 1934 for the purposes of carrying out formal investigation---Proceeding to exercise powers of arrest if required and recording in FIR Register under R. 24.5 of Police Rules, 1934 include reasons for police officer's 'suspicion' and need for arrest of accused---Inquiries carried out by police leading to refusing to 'register FIR' in FIR Register is not illegal.

Citation Name : 2024 MLD 1951 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Side Appellant : Jawad Muzaffar

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 249-A, 265-K, 561-A & 154 ---Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), Art. 44---Quashing of FIR---Dispute of civil nature---Alternate remedy---Petitioner/accused sought quashing of FIR registered against him on the ground that the matter was of civil nature which could only be agitated and adjudicated by the competent Court of civil jurisdiction---Validity---Record showed that petitioner had previously challenged the same FIR by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court conferred under Art. 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 and said petition was dismissed by the Court---Subsequently, PLA was also dismissed by the Supreme Court with the direction to the investigating agency to probe into the matter---Bare reading of S.561-A, cr.p.c showed that High Court could not embark upon the investigation proceedings in order to annul the same, and such-like application asking for quashment of investigation proceedings per se was not maintainable---When police report under S.173, cr.p.c , was submitted before the Court concerned, question of annulment/quashment of FIR becomes irrelevant and redundant for all its practical purpose, therefore, proper recourse and remedy available to an accused is to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial Court to get himself/herself exonerated under S.249-A, cr.p.c or under S.265-K, cr.p.c , as chapter of quashment of FIR stands closed after submission of police report under S.173, cr.p.c ---Petition was meritless, devoid of any force and not maintainable, which was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2023 PLD 265 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : F.I.A. through Director General, FIA

Side Opponent : Syed HAMID ALI SHAH

Ss. 561-A & 154 ---Inherent power of High Court---Quashment of FIR or investigation of criminal case---Scope---High Court has no power under Section 561-A, cr.p.c . to quash an FIR or an investigation proceeding, however, the High Court can quash a judicial proceeding pending before any subordinate court under Section 561-A, cr.p.c .

Citation Name : 2023 PCrLJ 222 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD NASIR

Side Opponent : JUSTICE OF PEACE

Ss. 22-A & 154 ---Justice of Peace, powers of--- Information in cognizable cases---Scope---Petitioner assailed the dismissal of his application under S. 22-A, cr.p.c .---Justice of Peace dismissed the application of the petitioner on the ground that in the Medico-Legal Certificate, the Medical Examiner had mentioned that there was a possibility of fabrication of injury, however, no reason in support of such opinion were furnished by him---Validity---Opinion of a medical examiner was not only relevant but also most pivotal in criminal justice system and at times it played a decisive role coupled with other evidence---Guarantee of fair trial under Art. 10-A of the Constitution was a wishful expectation without a medico legal system comprising of true experts having adequate qualification and skills---Practice which prevailed among the Medical Examiners was to tick on or circle around YES or No without furnishing any cogent reasons for rendering such opinion---Rendering such opinion without offering convincing reasons/justification was not in accordance with the settled norms of justice---No probative and evidentiary value could be attached to an opinion rendered by the Medical Examiner without furnishing cogent reasons in support of his opinion---Medical Examiners were under a bounden duty to furnish reasons in support of their opinion in order to make it having evidentiary sanctity in court of law---Opinion of an expert should be buttressed by the reasons or it would lose its sanctity---Proposed amended specimen of Medico Legal Certificate (MLC) had also been placed on the record with a space for furnishing reasons in support of opinion rendered by the Medical Examiners---Said facts were not only alarming but also resulting in miscarriage of justice in hundreds of cases every day---High Court observed that both Primary and Secondary Health Care and Specialized Healthcare and Medical Education Departments would ensure that Medical Examiners should meet the minimum qualification threshold and no unqualified and inexperienced doctor would be posted to perform such crucial and sensitive job---Minimum qualification threshold should be improved gradually as one-month practical training course seemed inadequate and too short to perform such a sensitive and complex job---Every Medical Examiner should be bound to furnish his reasons in support of his opinion and for that purpose a space should be provided in the Medico Legal Certificate---Petition was disposed of with observations/directions.

Citation Name : 2023 YLRN 51 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : Rai MANSAB ALI

Side Opponent : ALLAH DITTA, A.S.I.

S. 22-A---Ex-officio Justice of Peace, powers of---Scope---Appellant had filed a petition under S.22-A, cr.p.c ., seeking direction for the registration of criminal case against police officials for trespassing into the house of appellant, outraging the modesty of womenfolk and commission of dacoity on gunpoint while taking away precious articles from his house---Validity---Justice of Peace, being quasi-judicial forum, had to pass such like orders judiciously and he had rightly appreciated the controversy between the parties keeping in view the commission of cognizable offence---Single Judge of High Court had referred the matter to the District Police Officer with the direction to summon both the parties, hear them out and proceed strictly in accordance with law without being prejudiced from the order passed by the Justice of Peace and disposed of the matter---Exercise undertaken by the Single Judge amounted to putting the cart before the horse---Genuineness or otherwise of the accusation made against the proposed accused was serious in nature, which required for thorough probe during investigation after registration of the case especially, when it was against the police officials---Single Judge had failed to appreciate the actual facts of the case and thereby committed material irregularity and illegality while passing the impugned order, which warranted interference---Order passed by Single Judge was set aside and the S.H.O. concerned was directed to record the statement of petitioner under S. 154 , cr.p.c . Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2023 YLR 2038 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : ZAHEER AHMED alias GUL

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 4 & 5---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S.23(1)(a)---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Recovery of explosive substance and firearms, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---FIR was lodged with promptitude---Scope---Prosecution case was that one Hand Grenade and one pistol of .32-bore along with loaded magazine having three live rounds were recovered from the possession of the accused---Record showed that the complainant recorded his statement under S. 154 , cr.p.c . on the spot immediately after the arrest and recovery which was lodged as FIR with promptitude---Complainant thus had no time to cook up a false case with the police in order to falsely implicate the accused---Accused had been named in the FIR with a specific role---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2023 YLR 1160 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : ASHIQUE HUSSAIN KORAI

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 302(b) & 34---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Motive was not alleged---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the cousin of complainant and his wife by firing---Complainant in his statement under S. 154 , cr.p.c ., had not mentioned any motive in the commission of the crime by the accused---Complainant though had tried to explain the motive during the trial, but it could not be relied upon as it was an improvement at the trial stage---Appeal against conviction was dismissed in circumstances---Sentence of death was reduced to life imprisonment in respect of each murder.

Citation Name : 2023 PLD 288 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD BUX alias BABU

Side Opponent : STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION MIRPUR MATHELO

Ss.154 , 161, 22-A & 22-B---Powers of Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Registration of second FIR---Scope--- First Information Report was registered by the State through an Assistant Sub-Inspector against the son of respondent in respect of causing murder of his own sister in the name of honour---Trial was pending adjudication before the concerned court; however, Ex-officio Justice of Peace ordered for registration of second FIR in respect of the same incident---Respondent had approached the Ex-officio Justice of Peace for registration of FIR with the version that the present applicants had murdered his daughter, therefore, his statement may be recorded under S. 154 , cr.p.c .---Held; that the latter version was available with the respondent at the time when investigation was being conducted in the FIR; however, at that time he had not recorded his version before Investigating Officer---During the investigation conducted after registration of an FIR the Investigating Officer might record any number of versions of the same incident brought to his notice by different persons which versions were to be recorded by him under S. 161, cr.p.c ., in the same case---No separate FIR was to be recorded for any new version of the same incident---Order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace was set aside; however, it was left open to the respondent to approach the Investigating Officer for recording his statement under S. 161, cr.p.c .

Citation Name : 2023 PCrLJ 1752 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD RAHEEL

Side Opponent : State

S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of five hours and forty minutes in lodging the FIR---Effect---Accused was charged for committing murder of his wife/sister of complainant by inflicting knife blows---Record showed that the incident took place at about 2.00 p.m.---Complainant was informed about the incident whilst he was at work and he reached home at about 4.15 p.m. after the dead body of his sister had been transported from his house to the hospital---Complainant recorded his statement under S. 154 , cr.p.c . at 7.40 p.m., which became the FIR---Due to the trauma and tension which the complainant was under after finding out that his sister who was living with him had been brutally murdered and that his aged blind mother had been pushed to the floor where she became unconscious---Facts remained that the delay in lodging the FIR had been explained and as such the delay in lodging the FIR was not fatal to the prosecution case based on the particular facts and circumstances of the case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2023 PCrLJ 1615 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : ALI AKBAR

Side Opponent : State

Ss.154 , 161, 22-A & 22-B---Powers of Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Registration of second FIR---Scope---First Information Report was lodged by the State through an Assistant Sub-Inspector against the respondent and others in respect of quarrel between transporters, blockade of road, scuffle with the police and causing injuries to each other---Trial was pending adjudication before the concerned court; however, Ex-officio Justice of Peace ordered for registration of second FIR in respect of the same incident---Respondent had approached the Ex-officio Justice of Peace for registration of FIR with the version that the police officials took him in the police station, robbed him, broke his arm and caused kicks and fists blows---Held, that the latter version was available with the respondent at the time when investigation was being conducted in the FIR; however, at that time he had not recorded his version before Investigating Officer---During the investigation conducted after registration of an FIR the Investigating Officer might record any number of versions of the same incident brought to his notice by different persons which versions were to be recorded by him under S. 161, cr.p.c ., in the same case---No separate FIR was to be recorded for any new version of the same incident---Order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace was set aside; however, it was left open to the respondent to approach the Investigating Officer for recording of his statement under S. 161, cr.p.c .

Citation Name : 2023 PCrLJ 186 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : JAHANZEB KHAN

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention--- Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Delay of four hours in lodging FIR---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with co-accused made firing upon the complainant party, due to which cousin of the complainant died while complainant sustained injuries---Record showed that the FIR was lodged with promptitude within four hours of the incident---During that period the complainant who was injured had been taken to the hospital along with the deceased where his S. 154 , cr.p.c . Statement was recorded at the hospital on the arrival of the police and thereafter his FIR was lodged---Thus, there was no unexplained delay in the lodging of the FIR which would give the opportunity to the complainant or the police to cook up a false case against the accused for which the prosecution gained no advantage---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Prosecution had not been able to prove through evidence the motive for the accused murdering the deceased or attempting to murder complainant---Whether it was the pistol shot of accused which caused the fatal wound on the deceased which caused his death was not clear--- Death penalty was reduced to life imprisonment, in circumstances---Appeal was dismissed with modification in sentence.

Citation Name : 2023 MLD 2130 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD IMRAN

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 302(b) & 397---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129(g)---Qatl-i-amd and robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt---Appreciation of evidence---Withholding material evidence---Effect---Accused was charged for committing murder of the mother of complainant by causing her knife injuries and then taking away Rs. 150,000 from her---Record showed that Mst. "Z", who actually intimated the police about the incident, which was recorded under Roznamcha at Police Station, had not been examined by the prosecution and there was every possibility that on examination, she would have disclosed the true picture of the incident---Non-examination of said witness could not be lost sight of---On asking Investigating Officer was fair enough to admit that as per charge sheet the slips/chits allegedly written by the victim containing name of accused were handed over by the complainant to ASI and he had also recorded S. 154 , cr.p.c statement of the complainant---Said ASI had not been examined by the prosecution---Non-examination of said witness could not be overlooked---As per Investigating Officer he secured the cell phone of the deceased at the instance of the accused from one Mr. "A"---Said witness too had not been examined by the prosecution---Non-examination of said witness could also not be ignored---Prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond shadow of reasonable doubt, in circumstances---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2023 PLD 108 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Side Appellant : Raja MUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN

Side Opponent : JUSTICE OF PEACE/DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MUZAFFARABAD

Ss. 22-A, 22-B & 154 ---Powers of Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Information in cognizable cases---Registration of second FIR---Scope---Petitioner assailed order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace whereby second FIR of the incident, portraying a different angle, was ordered to be lodged---Validity---Section 154 , cr.p.c . was a key in the hand of an informer to get activated the investigation by the police and nothing more than that---Contention of petitioner that second FIR was not permissible, was discarded---No infirmity, illegality or judicial error was found in the impugned order---Writ petition was dismissed.

Citation Name : 2023 PLD 89 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Side Appellant : ZUBAIR

Side Opponent : SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT POLICE, JHELUM VALLEY

Art. 44---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 154 & 561-A---Writ petition---Quashing of FIR---Scope---High Court should not interfere with the normal course of trial and quash the criminal proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution or S. 561-A, cr.p.c .

Citation Name : 2023 YLR 336 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT

Side Appellant : MUJEEB UR REHMAN

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 396, 427, 148 & 149---Dacoity with murder, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Ocular account---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the cousin of the complainant during the course of dacoity in odd hours of the night on highway---Record showed that the taxi driver, who had attended the deceased per chance shortly after the assault when the accused persons already decamped from the scene, had submitted state forward, consistent and confidence inspiring evidence on the issue of commission of offence at the place of occurrence---Similarly, complainant, who was cousin of deceased, reported the matter through a murasila, deployed there being Incharge Casualty, Hospital, which was later on incorporated in book under S.154 , cr.p.c ., wherein he did not nominate anyone---Complainant merely pointed that he receiving the information about the murder of the deceased, who was being brought to the hospital, rushed to the hospital where he found the deceased dead, having firearm injuries---On the next day after namaz-e-janaza one witness told him that the deceased was bringing sixty lac for him---Complainant narrated such facts to Investigating Officer, who incorporated the same in his statement under S.161, cr.p.c ., which had been substantiated in their evidence by both the persons having also produced receipt containing endorsement receipt on its bottom in respect of the said amount of Rs. Sixsty lac---No animus could be attributed to any of the said witnesses---Said prosecution witnesses had supported the prosecution case, they were subjected to lengthy and searching cross-examination, but nothing could be elicited to shatter their testimony---Said witnesses remained consistent on all material particulars---No doubt there were some minor contradictions in their statements, but those being natural, because of lapse of such long time of more than six (06) years between the incident and their examination, were insignificant---Circumstances established that the prosecution had succeeded in proving its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2022 SCMR 1115 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : Major REHAN ZIA

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 154 , 494 & 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 448 & 380---Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Ordinance (VII of 1990), Preamble---House-trespass, theft in dwelling house---Pre-arrest bail, grant of---'Complainant'---Scope---Complainant of FIR passing away during the proceedings---After the moving of application before the Investigating Officer, the complainant of present case passed away---During the course of proceedings a lady claiming herself to be sister-in-law of the deceased complainant tried to take charge as complainant, and was in-fact claiming her status on the basis of a power-of-attorney---Held, that such power of attorney did not exist in the eyes of law as the executant of the same had already passed away---As far as criminal law was concerned, the concept of initiation of prosecution laid with the aggrieved person under section 154 , cr.p.c . and thereafter the same was entrusted to the State whereas under section 494, cr.p.c . if the proceedings were supposed to be withdrawn, the same was responsibility of the Public Prosecutor---After the promulgation of Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1990, the scope of aggrieved person had been extended, however, it was only limited to the cases relating to bodily harm---Present case only related to sections 448 & 380, P.P.C., which did not come within the ambit of bodily harm, therefore, the extension of definition of aggrieved person was not available to lady in the given circumstances---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and accused was admitted to pre-arrest bail.

Citation Name : 2022 SCMR 1107 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : RAFAQAT ALI

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 154 & 161---Accused not named in the FIR, implicated through supplementary statement of witness---Prosecution, duty of---Though the First Information Report (FIR) is not to be taken as prosecution's last word, nonetheless, a supplementary statement, essentially being a statement under section 161 of cr.p.c . cannot be read in continuation thereof and, thus, a heavy responsibility is cast upon the prosecution to satisfactorily explain its initial failure to nominate an accused in the crime report and the circumstances improving upon its knowledge so as to justify inclusion of the accused.

Citation Name : 2022 SCMR 576 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : IKRAM ULLAH KHAN YOUSAFZAI, EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICER, PESHAWAR

Side Opponent : Dr. RIZWAN ULLAH

Ss. 22-A & 154 ---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---High Court issuing directions for registration of FIR in its Constitutional jurisdiction against officials of Excise and Taxation department---Legality---Petitioners (officials of Excise and Taxation department) while executing a non-bailable warrant of arrest purportedly issued by the competent authority took the respondent in custody, who was alleged to have been a defaulter of property tax---Allegedly the respondent claimed he was not in default but the raiding party kept him in confinement till the evening, when some advocates got him released---Respondent approached the police for registration of a criminal case against the excise officials and upon refusal filed a petition under S. 22-A, cr.p.c , which was declined by a Justice of Peace---However Judge-in-Chamber of the High Court vide impugned order directed registration of a criminal case---Held, that record showed issuance of multiple notices for the recovery of outstanding assessment of property tax, predating the incident---Warrant issued by an Assistant Collector, though disputed as fake was, nonetheless, mainstay of the petitioners' case who in their official capacity were tasked to collect the assessed amount and, thus, prima facie, within the bounds of law to execute the impugned warrant---Rowdy behavior and inappropriate selection of time and venue for the execution of the warrant as alleged by the respondent though despicable, nonetheless, by itself did not expose the petitioners to criminal consequences---Nothing was available on the record to view the purported non-bailable warrant as a fake instrument---Similarly, it was not open for the respondent to unilaterally dispute the vires of impugned assessment, reportedly stalled till date---Furthermore it was not understandable under what authority of law, the rescuing team that included some lawyers took away the respondent from custody apparently sanctioned by law, which was a criminal offence in itself---Issues highlighted in the present case hinged upon factual controversies and as such could not have been attended to by the High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction in the face of multiple alternate statutory remedies available to the respondent---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed; impugned direction/order of High Court was set aside, with the observation that the respondent was at liberty to dispute the vires of impugned assessment before the competent forum in accordance with law as well as to avail alternate remedy of private complaint to be attended on its own merits.

Citation Name : 2022 SCMR 2001 SUPREME-COURT

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ALI

Side Opponent : SAMINA QASIM TARAR

Ss. 405 & 406---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 154 ---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Criminal breach of trust---First Information Report (FIR) quashed by High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction---Legality---In the present case, the alternative remedy of filing petition (under cr.p.c ) was not availed rather accused persons/ respondents directly filed a Constitution petition (before the High Court) calling in question the very registration of FIR---Contents of the crime report were totally ignored by the High Court and were not taken into consideration while adjudicating the matter---Bare perusal of the FIR and the agreement to sell prima facie revealed that a clear allegation of entrustment and misappropriation of the property was made by the petitioner/vendee against the respondents/vendors in the FIR, which prima-facie disclosed an offence under section 405, P.P.C. punishable under section 406, P.P.C.---Admittedly, despite lapse of statutory period, the challan had not been submitted before the Trial Court, which ex-facie meant that investigation had not been completed---In such circumstances, the possibility could not be ruled out that further material may be collected for proceeding with trial---Question regarding determination as to whether there was an entrustment of property, as asserted by the petitioner, could best be left to Trial Court to consider and decide in exercise of its power after recording of evidence--- Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and impugned judgment of the High Court was set-aside with the direction to the prosecution branch to submit challan of the case before the Trial Court without un-necessary delay.

Citation Name : 2022 YLR 2215 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Side Appellant : SAIF UD DIN

Side Opponent : MUHI UD DIN

Ss. 22-A, 154 , 155 & 200---Non-cognizable offence---Ex-officio Justice of Peace--- Jurisdiction--- Petitioner was aggrieved of direction issued by Ex-officio Justice of Peace for registration of FIR against him in case where no cognizable offence was made out---Validity---Ex-officio Justice of Peace was empowered under S.22-A(1-6), cr.p.c . to issue necessary directions for registration of FIR, if after perusal of available record contents of application prima facie could establish commission of cognizable offence---In case of non-cognizable offence, two remedies were available first before Station House Officer concerned, to whom application was sent by Ex-officio Justice of Peace, to register complaint in Daily Roznamcha Report and was to proceed according to provisions of S.155, cr.p.c . for seeking permission from Judicial Magistrate for investigation and thereafter to submit complaint before Court---Remedy of private complaint under S.200, cr.p.c . before Court was also available to complainant---High Court set aside order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace and FIR registered against petitioner was quashed---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2022 YLR 953 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Side Appellant : AKBAR HARIFAL

Side Opponent : ZAHID NOOR

Ss. 22-A, 22-B & 154 ---Powers of Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Information in cognizable cases---Scope---Word 'shall' has been used in S.154 , cr.p.c ., while the word 'may' has been used in S. 22-A(6), cr.p.c ., which manifests the intention of legislature that Ex-officio Justice of Peace is still left with discretion to pass an order for registration of FIR.

Citation Name : 2022 PLD 773 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MEERA SHAFI

Side Opponent : FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN

Ss. 154 , 156 & 157---Information in cognizable cases---Investigation into cognizable cases---Procedure where cognizable offence suspected---Scope---Receipt and recording of an information report is not a condition precedent to the setting in motion of a criminal investigation---Criminal prosecutions are undertaken as a result of information received and recorded but there is no reason why the police, if in possession through their own knowledge or by means of credible though informal intelligence which genuinely leads them to the belief that a cognizable offence has been committed, should not of their own motion undertake an investigation into the truth of the matters alleged---Section 157, cr.p.c ., when directing that a police officer, who has reason to suspect from information or otherwise that an offence which he is empowered to investigate under S. 156 has been committed shall proceed to investigate the facts and circumstances, supports this view---In truth the provisions as to an information report (commonly called a first information report) are enacted for other reasons---Object is to obtain early information of the alleged criminal activity, to record the circumstances before there is time for them to be forgotten or embellished.

Citation Name : 2022 PLD 773 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MEERA SHAFI

Side Opponent : FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN

Ss. 155 & 154 ---Prevention of Electronic Crimes Investigation Rules, 2018, Rr. 6 & 7---Information in non-cognizable cases---Investigation and case procedure---Scope---Rule 6(3) of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Investigation Rules, 2018, (PECIR) stipulates that a complainant may file his complaint in-person, via e-mail, fax, telephone or other available digital means to a Cybercrime Reporting Centre---Rule 7 retains the distinction between cognizable and non-cognizable offences---However, it is not happily worded and appears to be incoherent---Rule 7(1) lays down that the Circle in-charge may allow registration of a case on the complaint received under R. 6(3) and nominate an investigation officer while R. 7(4) enjoins that if the offence alleged in the complaint is cognizable, the Circle in-charge shall order registration of case after seeking legal opinion and approval of the Additional Director in the zone---On the other hand, R. 7(5) ordains that non-cognizable offences are to be dealt with according to S. 155, cr.p.c . and permission of the competent court is necessary for their investigation---Tension between different provisions of R. 7 can be resolved by holding that when a complaint is received at the Cybercrime Reporting Centre the Circle in-charge may allow it to be registered for further processing and nominate an officer therefor---First Information Report is to be lodged only if it is found that a cognizable offence has been committed under the PECA and that too after completing the requirements of R. 7(4) but in the case involving non-cognizable offence the Circle in-charge should seek permission of the competent court for investigation.

Citation Name : 2022 PLD 664 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUNIR AHMAD BHATTI

Side Opponent : DIRECTOR, FIA CYBER CRIME WING, LAHORE

Rr.3 & 4---Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act (XL of 2016), Ss.20 & 43---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 22-A, 22-B & 154 ---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Initiation of action by Federal Investigation Agency---Cyber crime---Non-cognizable and compoundable offence---Petitioner was aggrieved of dismissal of his application by Ex-officio Justice of Peace declining direction to Federal Investigation Agency for registration of FIR---Validity---Provision of R. 7(5) of Federal Investigation Agency (Inquiries and Investigations) Rules, 2002 ordained that non-cognizable offences were to be dealt with according to S.155, cr.p.c ., and permission of competent Court was necessary for investigation---Some preliminary inquiry was permissible even in such category of cases---Allegation levelled by petitioner against respondent attracted S.20 of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2002, which was a non-cognizable and compoundable offence in terms of S.43 of Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2002---Federal Investigating Agency initiated inquiry on the complaint of petitioner which was pending---Ex-officio Justice of Peace rightly directed Inquiry Officer to conclude it expeditiously and asked the parties to wait for its outcome---Alleged offence was non-cognizable and FIR could not be ordered to be registered in any eventuality---High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Ex-officio Justice of Peace, as petitioner failed to point out any legal infirmity in order---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2022 MLD 1091 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : ZEESHAN ANJUM

Side Opponent : State

Chap. XVII-B [Ss. 462-G to 462-P]---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.154 ---Offences relating to electricity---Information in cognizable cases---Registration of FIR---Scope---Registration of FIR for offences under Chapter XVII-B, P.P.C. is not barred, because all the offences have been shown as cognizable in Sched. II of cr.p.c .---Later during the process, the requisite complaint is required to be filed with report under S.173, cr.p.c ., before the Trial Court---Prosecutor is expected to scrutinize such complaint and report under S.173, cr.p.c ., before forwarding it to the court concerned so as to make it conformable with the requirement of S.462-O, P.P.C.

Citation Name : 2022 YLR 1681 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : AMANULLAH

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 302(b), 324 & 34---Explosive Substances Act (VI of 1908), Ss. 4 & 5---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, common intention, causing explosion likely to endanger life or property, attempt to cause explosion or making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property, possession of illegal weapons, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Improvements made by the witnesses---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of two persons including brother-in-law of complainant by firing, causing injuries to a person and also throwing a ball cracker which could not explode---Incident was unseen and the prosecution had not been able to produce a witness within whose sight the incident occurred---Admittedly, the testimony of complainant was hearsay in nature---Complainant had resiled from his earlier statement as recorded in 154 , cr.p.c . statement and made improvement while recording his evidence at trial---Said improvement created serious doubt with regard to veracity of his evidence that why he did not mention the said facts while recording his statement under S. 154 , cr.p.c .---Complainant did not disclose the name of any person, who allegedly informed him about involvement of culprits in the commission of crime, rather he subsequently changed his version, which seemed to be an embroidery work of the complainant just to cover an unseen occurrence---Similarly, during cross-examination, complainant had admitted that he had mentioned in his statement under S.161, cr.p.c . that police had informed him about the arrest of accused persons involved in the commission of crime---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2022 YLR 484 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD AAMIR

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 302, 324, 109 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, abetment, common intention, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Delay of about nine days in lodging the FIR---Effect---Prosecution case was that the accused persons and two unknown culprits started firing at the passengers of the Passenger Van during the course of which the complainant and a passenger sustained bullet injuries, who were shifted to the hospital where injured passenger succumbed to the injuries---Incident had taken place on 23.06.2003 and yet the statement of deceased/complainant under S. 154 , cr.p.c . which formed the basis of the FIR, was recorded on 02.07.2003---Prosecution had tried to justify the delay based on the fact that the complainant was so seriously injured that it was not possible to record his statement before that time---Admittedly, the complainant was seriously injured and he was operated on and kept in the ICU---Medical Officer, who first received the injured at hospital, stated in his cross-examination that the injured was in a position to make a statement---Even Medico Legal Certificate of victim revealed that on admission to the hospital, he was conscious---Statement under S.154 , cr.p.c . of victim could have been recorded without delay---Even otherwise there was no evidence to suggest that the complainant was completely comatose and unable to make a statement before 02.07.03---To wait for the complainant to gain consciousness before recording his statement S. 154 , cr.p.c . was not essential---Prosecution did not adequately explain the delay in registering the FIR after a lapse of nine days especially as there were others available who could have readily and quite capably registered the FIR as they were well aware of the basic facts of the incident---Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the accused---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2022 PCrLJ 1160 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : IFTIKHAR AHMED alias BADSHAH

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 302(b), 376 & 397---Qatl-i-amd, kidnapping or abducting a person under the age of fourteen, robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of about three hours in lodging the FIR---Effect---Accused was charged for committing murder of the brother, his wife, daughter and son of the complainant during dacoity---Record showed that the statement under S. 154 , cr.p.c ., was recorded by the complainant within three hours of the incident despite their being no eye-witness to the incident and thus the FIR was lodged with promptitude---Even otherwise, the complainant had no enmity with the accused and had no reason to implicate him in a false case---FIR was against unknown persons which would not have been the case if the aim of the FIR was to falsely implicate the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had successfully proved its case---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2022 PCrLJ 1094 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : KHALID ALAM

Side Opponent : PROVINCE OF SINDH through Home Secretary Sindh

Chap. XIV [Ss. 154 to 176]---Information to the police and their powers to investigate---Scope---After an FIR, the matter becomes a case and the Investigating Officer in the investigation of the case can record any number of versions of the same incident brought to his notice by different persons but those would be treated statements recorded under S. 160, cr.p.c . and for which no separate FIR would be required to be lodged---Investigating Officer is bound to investigate all such versions of the incident in the case and is not obligated to focus on establishing correctness of the story of incident contained in the FIR---Investigating Officer is not required to be restricted or guided or controlled by version in the FIR either---If the information collected in the investigation points to a version and background different than what is revealed in the FIR, the same would be deemed only a version of first informant and nothing more---Report under S. 173, cr.p.c . is to be based on final opinion of the investigating officer which has to be influenced by information/evidence collected from any number of persons acquainted with the circumstances of the case.

Citation Name : 2022 PCrLJ 709 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Syed ASGHAR ALI SHAH

Side Opponent : CIRCLE OFFICER, ANTI-CORRUPTION ESTABLISHMENT, GHOTKI CIRCLE

S. 154 ---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Quashing of FIR---Transfer of investigation---Scope---Accused/petitioner sought quashing of FIR and change of investigation---Held; accused could apply for pre-trial or pending trial acquittal under S. 265-K, cr.p.c ., as such no further discussion was necessary for quashing of FIR---Accused had shown mistrust upon the enquiry being conducted by Circle Officer of Anti-Corruption Establishment and had presented a photograph of the Circle Officer wherein he was sitting before a notable politician in submissive style at his place---Photograph indicated that he was vulnerable to take pressure or he was eager to make someone's acquaintance beneficial for him---Although, distrust of accused upon Circle Officer was not unfounded but still the enquiry in a criminal case could not be discontinued as such it was not proper to quash any enquiry---Enquiry was transferred to another officer---Chairman Anti-Corruption Establishment was instructed to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Circle Officer and it further ordered that no field posting would be offered to Circle Officer in future---Petition was disposed of accordingly.

Citation Name : 2022 PCrLJ 661 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : ABDUL RAHEEM SHAH

Side Opponent : GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary Ministry of Interior

Ss. 561-A, 173 & 154 ---Inherent powers of High Court---Report of Investigating Officer---Information in cognizable cases---Scope---Applicant sought quashing of trial against him on the ground that he had reported the incident in the capacity of a complainant and that he had killed the deceased in his self-defence---Held, opinion of Investigating Officer was influenced by different pieces of evidence which the Trial Court had found to be sufficient for holding a trial---Investigating officer was not required to be guided and controlled by the story of the FIR---Where the information collected in the investigation showed the manner of commission of offence, its background and the person who had done it otherwise than the one expressed in the FIR, the complainant's version of events would only be considered as a first information of the incident and nothing more, which on account of discovery of different facts would not be accepted by the investigating officer as true reflection of the incident and he would not be obliged to approve it for the trial---Investigating officer was required to unearth actuality of the matter irrespective of version disclosed in FIR and in the process was expected to collect information from all the persons who seemed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case---Based on such collection he had to make a final opinion to be submitted in the court under S. 173, cr.p.c ., for holding a trial--- If during such process, evidence pointed unambiguously to the complainant having played accused in the incident his place would be transposed and he would be made as accused regardless of his status in the FIR---Application was dismissed.

Citation Name : 2022 PCrLJ 21 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : ALLAH BACHAYO

Side Opponent : STATION HOUSE OFFICER, POLICE STATION MATLI

Ss. 22-A, 22-B, 185 & 561-A---Inherent jurisdiction of High Court---Registration of criminal case---Territorial jurisdiction---Offence consisting of several acts--- Applicant/complainant was aggrieved of order passed by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace who partly allowed his application only to the extent of offence committed in his territorial jurisdiction and declined remaining part falling outside his territorial jurisdiction---Validity---Nothing prevented High Court to give appropriate direction or to make an order for registration of FIR at any of the two police stations where the alleged continued offence consisting of several acts was committed--- High Court directed Station House Officer to record statement of applicant/complainant under S. 154 , cr.p.c . including but not limited to the allegations in respect of continuing acts committed within the local areas of his police station and as well register FIR against all nominated/proposed accused in other district---High Court set aside the order passed by Ex-Officio Justice of Peace to the extent of offence falling outside his territorial jurisdiction---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2022 PCrLJN 125 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : ALI HASSAN

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 302, 397, 427 & 34---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7---Sindh Arms Act (V of 2013), S. 23(1)(A)---Qatl-i-amd, robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, common intention, possessing unlicensed weapon, act of terrorism---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of nine hours in lodging the FIR---Scope---Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused persons tried to snatch cash amount from complainant party on the show of weapon, on resistance, they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which driver of the complainant died, whereas guard sustained firearm injury---Record showed that the FIR was lodged with promptitude being nine hours after the attempted robbery and shooting of the deceased---Such delay had been explained by the Police Official, who stated that he only returned to the Police Station after performing his duties following the incident at 12.00 a.m. when he recorded the S. 154 , cr.p.c . statement of the complainant who had been waiting for him at the Police Station for over four hours---Complainant had no enmity with the accused to implicate him in a false case and did not even name him in the FIR---Had the accused wanted to fix the accused in a false case he would have named him in the FIR---Fact that complainant did not show that he was not colluding or conniving with the police who already knew the name of the accused who had been arrested on the spot---With respect to an explained delay in lodging the FIR not being fatal to the prosecution case---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond any shadow of doubt---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2022 PCrLJN 97 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : DURO alias DUR MOHAMMAD

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 302, 337-H(2), 114, 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapon, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Delay of twenty hours in lodging of the FIR---Effect---Accused was charged that he and his co-accused committed murder of the son of complainant by firing---Record showed that there was delay of twenty hours in lodging FIR, however, explanation in that regard had been furnished by the mother of the deceased that due to odd hours of the night she could not go with her husband to the police station for lodging the report---Eye-witnesses were old parents of the deceased, certainly, they would be under the shock---Delay caused in the lodging of the FIR would not be fatal to the case of prosecution---High Court observed that delay in lodging the FIR under S. 154 , cr.p.c ., was never considered sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution case; delay only put the court on notice to undertake close scrutiny of evidence available on record to avoid false involvement of the accused---Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case through reliable and trustworthy evidence---Appeal against conviction was dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2022 PCrLJN 95 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD NOMAN

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 302(b), 392, 344 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, robbery, wrongful confinement for ten or more days, common intention---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Last seen evidence---Scope---Accused were charged for committing murder of the father of complainant and then robbing different articles from his house---Sister-in-law of complainant had furnished last seen evidence of the case, who saw two women and one man sitting with the deceased in his room, however, the statement of said witness was not recorded for two days and that she was not taken to identify the accused at the identification parade, which itself diluted the case of the prosecution as far as the last seen evidence was concerned---No cogent reason was given at trial to establish that the deceased in normal and ordinary course was in the company of the accused---No cogent evidence was produced that the deceased knew the accused (apart from a vague assertion made by sister-in-law of complainant)---No motive for the accused to kill the deceased was available, thus, it appeared that the motive regarding robbery, as was the statement of sister-in-law of complainant, was manufactured by the Investigating Officer to establish a case---No mention of missing articles was found in the statement under S. 154 , cr.p.c . that the complainant recorded, however, subsequently, it was alleged that cash, gold ornaments, mobile phones, camera, and other articles were robbed by the accused from the deceased's room---Fact remained that the entire family of the deceased did not know that all the said items had been robbed from their father, which was extremely unnatural and unbelievable---Circumstances established that it would be unsafe to sustain a conviction on the basis of the evidence produced at trial---Appeals against conviction were allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2022 YLR 112 ISLAMABAD

Side Appellant : Syed SAJID HUSSAIN

Side Opponent : EX-OFFICIO JUSTICE OF PEACE/ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-IX, WEST, ISLAMABAD

Ss. 22-A & 154 ---Justice of Peace, powers of---Information in cognizable cases---Scope---Petitioner assailed the dismissal of his application under S.22-A, cr.p.c .---Petitioner had a dispute regarding a house with the proposed accused who was owner of the house---Petitioner had entered into an agreement to sell, paid certain amount as part consideration and obtained possession of a portion of the house---Petitioner had filed a suit for specific performance and had also filed a complaint to police for registration of FIR under Ss. 420, 441, 341, 342, 506 & 380, P.P.C.---Police after investigating the matter had closed the inquiry on the ground that the parties were contesting civil suits before the Civil Court and the Justice of Peace had dismissed the petition under S.22-A, cr.p.c .---Station House Officer had no power to refuse the registration of FIR, if he was informed orally or in writing regarding commission of a cognizable offence---No bar existed on initiating civil and criminal proceedings simultaneously as both could run side by side with varying results---Role of Justice of Peace under S.22-A(6), cr.p.c ., was limited to the extent of scrutinizing the case just to see as to whether a cognizable offence was made out on the basis of information provided by the informer---Justice of Peace was not authorized to initiate independent investigation to ascertain the veracity of information/complaint---Justice of Peace and police authorities had exceeded their jurisdiction provided under the law---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances and the SHO was directed to register FIR in pursuance of the complaint.

Citation Name : 2022 PCrLJ 1331 ISLAMABAD

Side Appellant : JUNAID MASEEH

Side Opponent : State

Ss. 195 & 154 ---Information in cognizable cases---Prosecution for certain offences---Scope---If the provisions of S. 195(1)(c), cr.p.c ., place a prohibition against taking cognizance of except in the given manner then all prior steps taken before the stage of taking of cognizance by Court could be deemed to be permissible.

Citation Name : 2022 PCrLJ 534 ISLAMABAD

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ASHAR HALIM QURAISHI

Side Opponent : EX-OFFICIO JUSTICE OF PEACE/ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, EAST ISLAMABAD

Ss. 22-A, 22-B & 154 ---Petition under Ss. 22-A & 22-B, cr.p.c .---Police report requisitioned by Justice of Peace---Where a Justice of Peace calls for a police report, he cannot ordinarily brush aside the same---In case he proposes to give his opinion contrary to the police report he is supposed to furnish tangible reasons for not relying upon the said report.

Citation Name : 2022 MLD 31 ISLAMABAD

Side Appellant : HAMID KHAN

Side Opponent : State

Ss.22-A (6) & 154 ---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.489-F---Dishonouring of cheque---Second FIR, quashing of---Scope---Guidelines to police officers---Petitioner/accused sought quashing of second FIR for dishonour of second cheque issued during same transaction for which earlier one FIR had already been registered---Validity---Held, second FIR could not be registered in cases of same transaction like cheques of same series originating on same cause of action, whether dishonoured or not or subsequently dishonoured after registration of first FIR---If second FIR was lodged the same should be cancelled by referring subsequent cheques through supplementary challan in first FIR/case---If second FIR was not registered and matter was pending before Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, who was dealing with the case, he could pass order/direction under S.22-A (6), cr.p.c . to investigating officer of the first case, who had already registered the FIR or had submitted final report under S.173, cr.p.c ., to file supplementary challan in that first case on the basis of such new facts of cognizable offence emanating from the same incident / transaction like dishonoured cheque---If police officer had also registered second FIR, he could convert final report in terms of S.173, cr.p.c . as supplementary report of first FIR while considering offence of same transaction, must submit supplementary challan in the same court without recourse to arrest of accused---Where different dishonoured cheques were still with complainant, which had not been used against same accused originating from same transaction and series of cheques, which were basis of first FIR, in such situation no further F.I.R. could be registered and police officer should not proceed in those cases, rather should refer the parties to Court of competent jurisdiction under the law by way of filing of civil suit for recovery---Officer incharge of police station should not entertain every such application of subsequent dishonoured cheque of same accused by facilitating complainant as helping in or becoming tool of recovery---Police officers were duty bound to refer the parties to Court of competent jurisdiction or directed the matter to concerned police station for recording of entire complaint in police diary with reasons that already FIR has been lodged and complainant did not disclose other cheques of same transaction due to his ill-will and mala fide---If trial of first FIR was already concluded then police officer should not register second FIR in any manner of the same transaction or series of offences which had already been adjudicated upon the basis of same set of allegations---High Court quashed second FIR as the same was abuse of process and complainant had right to recourse to remedy of recovery provided under law---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2022 PLD 45 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Side Appellant : SIDRA ALAM

Side Opponent : State

Art. 44---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 561-A, 154 , 169, 249-A, 265-K & 551---Police Rules, 1934, R. 24.7---Writ petition---Quashing of FIR---Information in cognizable cases---Release of accused when evidence deficient---Power of Magistrate to acquit accused at any stage---Power of Court to acquit accused at any stage---Powers of superior officers of police---Cancellation of cases---Scope---Several remedies have been provided to an accused if he is of the view that he has been involved in the case illegally with mala fide intention and there is no chance of his ultimate conviction---Accused can agitate the matter before the investigation agency---Accused can approach the superior officers under S. 551 of cr.p.c .---Rule 24.7 of the Police Rules, 1934, provides for cancellation of cases under order of Magistrate---Section 169 of the cr.p.c . relates to release of accused when evidence is deficient---Section 249-A of cr.p.c . also provides power to Magistrate to acquit accused at any stage---Section 265-K of cr.p.c . also provides power of Court to acquit accused at any stage---High Court has no role at investigation stage unless some glaring violation of law is pointed out---If quashing of every case registered under S. 154 , cr.p.c . was allowed whole scheme of law would be frustrated which should not be allowed at any cost.

Citation Name : 2022 YLR 1891 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Side Appellant : KHURRUM SHAHZAD

Side Opponent : SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT POLICE, DISTRICT MIRPUR AZAD KASHMIR

Ss. 154 & 156---Information in cognizable cases---Investigation into cognizable cases---Scope---Incharge of concerned police station is duty bound to register FIR on receiving information of any cognizable offence and conduct investigation in accordance with law---Officer incharge of the police station is required by law to record the same in writing, irrespective of the fact that the information which he had received is correct or otherwise---After registration of the case/FIR, any officer incharge of police station will investigate the matter according to S. 156, cr.p.c .---Investigation regarding the commission of offence is the duty as well as the prerogative of the police to investigate into the matter whenever a report is made to it and it is for the Investigating Officer to conclude the matter in view of oral and documentary evidence.

Citation Name : 2022 PCrLJ 235 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD TARIQ

Side Opponent : JUSTICE OF PEACE/SESSIONS JUDGE, MUZAFFARABAD

Ss. 154 & 161---Information in cognizable cases---Examination of witnesses by police---Second FIR---Scope---Language employed by the Legislature in S. 154 , cr.p.c . indicates that a police officer on receiving such information, relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, is bound to enter the substance thereof in the book maintained for such purpose at the police station---Only one FIR in respect of an occurrence wherein a cognizable offence has been committed and any other version of the same incident advanced by any person during the investigation of the case is to be recorded under S. 161, cr.p.c .---Aggrieved person also has an alternate remedy by way of a private complaint.

Citation Name : 2022 PCrLJ 235 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD TARIQ

Side Opponent : JUSTICE OF PEACE/SESSIONS JUDGE, MUZAFFARABAD

Ss. 154 & 173---Information in cognizable cases---Report of police officer---Duty of Investigating Officer---Second FIR---Scope---Matter of registration of multiple FIRs in respect of the same offence stems from a misunderstanding that an FIR is the version of the incident reported to the police whereas the legal position is that an FIR registered under S. 154 , cr.p.c . is only an information about commission of a cognizable offence and not an information about the circumstances in which such offence was committed or by whom it was committed---Investigating Officer is to collect every possible information about the facts and circumstances of the case, he is to receive or record any information in that regard becoming available from any source, whatsoever, he is not to prematurely commit himself to any particular version of the incident and after finding out the actual facts the final report under S. 173, cr.p.c . is to be submitted.

Citation Name : 2021 PCrLJ 1079 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Side Appellant : HAYATULLAH

Side Opponent : DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF BALOCHISTAN POLICE, QUETTA

S. 154 ---Information in cognizable cases---Scope---Section 154 , cr.p.c ., casts a statutory duty upon the Officer-in-Charge of Police Station to enter information regarding commission of any cognizable offence---If the information is given orally to an Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station he shall reduce it into writing and read it over to the informant and every such information shall be signed by the person giving it and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the Provincial Government may prescribe--- Section 154 , cr.p.c . is mandatory and leaves no scope for exercise of any discretion by the police officer concerned in recording the First Information Report or in refusing to record the same.

Sohaib Ali Sheikh

Search This Blog

Section 154 - Criminal Procedure Code - 1898 (Judgements)

Section 154 - Criminal Procedure Code - 1898

(Judgements)

Comments

Post a Comment