Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 318 of 1968, decided on 29th November 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 2nd October 1968, in Criminal Revision No. 766 of 1966).
Ss. 173 & 190(1) Police submitting incomplete report under S. 173 and showing accused to be in column 1 but in the final challan submitted subsequently accused's name entered in column 2‑Contention that as accused's name was shown in column 2 of the final police challan, Inquiry Magistrate could take cognizance only under S. 190(1)(c) and, therefore, it was necessary to allow accused option to have inquiry against him held by another Magistrate Held : there is no provision in Cr. P. C. for submission of incomplete report under S. 173‑Inquiry Magistrate, in such circumstance, not precluded from taking cognizance until final challan submitted‑Contention, therefore, that accused should have option to have inquiry held by another Magistrate, ill founded.
Mian Muzaffar Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 29th November 1968.
It is unnecessary to advert to the facts of the case which are fully set out in the impugned order of the High Court.
The main contention raised in the petition under section 439, Cr. P. C., before the High Court was that as in the report under section 173 the carne of the petitioner was entered in column 2 the Inquiry Magistrate could take cognizance under section 190 (1) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it was necessary for this purpose to allow the petitioner an option to have the inquiry against him held by another Magistrate. The learned Judge in the High Court found no substance in the contention as in the challan originally submitted by the Police on the 27th December 1967, the petitioner's name was entered in column 1 and the Inquiry Magistrate taking cognizance of the case fixed a date for recording prosecution evidence. Subse quently the Deputy Inspector‑General of Police, C. I. D., at the instance of the petitioner caused a fresh investigation to be made and consequent upon it another challan was put in, in which the name of the petitioner was entered in column 2.
It was contended that the report submitted on the 27th December 1967, was incomplete and that cognizance could be taken on the submission of the final report. There is no provision for submission of an interim or an incomplete report under section 173. The investigation was in all other respects complete except that the report of the Ballistic expert had not been received by the 27th December 1967. It could not, therefore, be said that the report dated 27‑12‑1966 did not satisfy the requirements of section 173 and that the Inquiry Magistrate was precluded from taking cognizance until the final challan was submitted. All the accused persons including the petitioner were produced in Court on the 27th December 1966, and the hearing of the inquiry was adjourned to 15th January for recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses. No other order need have been passed for taking cognizance of the case against the petitioner.
The contention that the petitioner should have been given the option to have the inquiry held by another Magistrate, was, therefore, equally ill‑founded.
The petition is dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer