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 Miscellaneous No. 423/Q of 1973, decided on 2nd June 197,
‑‑‑ Ss. 200 & 202‑Assistant Commissioner, without examining complainant, transferring application to Tehsildar and Assistant Food Controller for enquiry‑Such procedure, held, illegal‑Inquiry proceedings quashed with direction to entertain complaint afresh.
When the inquiry was ordered by the Assistant Commissioner to be held by the Tehsildar and the Assistant Food Controller the application of the respondent was not treated as a criminal complaint. Had he treated it so, he would have examined the complainant and thereafter either enquired into the matter himself or would have entrusted it to some one else for inquiry as contemplated under section 202, Cr. P. C.
Abid Hassan Minto for Petitioner.
Walayat Umar for A. G. for the State.
Ch. Hafiz Ahmad for Respondent No. 3.
Date of hearing: 9th July 1974.
Khalid Latif (petitioner) has filed this petition under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C. praying for the quashment of the proceedings pending in the Court of Resident Magistrate, Vehari on the complaint made by the respondent against him and the petitioner has been summoned under sections 500, 501, P. P. C.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the petitioner who is a reporter in the Daily 'Imroze' Multan, was alleged to have published in his paper a news item making certain imputations against the respondent regarding the supply of bad quality wheat. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent made an application before the Assistant Commissioner, Vehari asking him for holding an inquiry in the matter as according to him, the imputations were made to defame him. By his order dated 6‑7‑1973, the Assistant Commissioner deputed Tehsildar, Vehari and Assistant Food Controller for holding an inquiry and asked for their report. A joint inquiry was held by these two officers. They recorded the statements of the complainant and six witnesses and submitted their report. In their joint report, they suggested that a case under section 500/501, P. P. C. be registered against the petitioner. Consequently, on 7‑7‑73, the Assistant Commissioner ordered; "that the result of the inquiry made by the Tehsildar revealed that an offence under sections 500/ 501, P. P. C. prima facie appeared to have been committed". He entrusted the case to the Resident Magistrate, Vehari. On the same day, the case was put up before the Duty Magistrate (Tehsildar) who summoned the accused by issuing his bailable warrants for 16‑7‑73 and thereafter the petitioner appeared before the trial Court and the proceedings against him commenced. In the meanwhile, the present petition was filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the application made by the respondent before the Assistant Commissioner was in the first instance not treated as a complaint by the Assistant Commissioner because he did not record the statement of the complainant but simply forwarded it to the two officers deputing them to hold an inquiry and asked for their report. He further contended that section 202, Cr. P. C. does not contemplate a joint inquiry by two persons or more. He further argued that it appears that the Assistant Commissioner at first, took up the matter on the executive side but later when the joint report disclosed that action under section 500/501, P. P. C. be taken, the Assistant Commissioner thereafter ordered the proceedings to be taken on the judicial side. It was also argued that the Tehsildar was a party to this preliminary inquiry, he therefore, could not take cognizance of the matter as Duty Magistrate later, particularly when the Assistant Commissioner had entrusted the case to the Resident Magistrate. It was also contended that since the petitioner had alleged in the news item connivance of the Food Department with the respondent, therefore the Assistant Food Controller should not have been appointed to hold the preliminary inquiry.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that if the complainant was not examined soon after the presentation of the complaint, it would at tile most be an irregularity which was curable. He next submitted that a joint inquiry by the Assistant Food Controller and the Tehsildar did not vitiate the proceedings because it did not create any prejudice to the accused. I have considered the matter and I am of the opinion that there are a number of irregularities which have been committed in handling this complaint. It appears that when, the inquiry was ordered by the Assistant Commissioner to be hold by the Tehsildar and the Assistant Food Controller the application of the respondent was not treated a criminal complaint Had he treated it so, he would have examined the complainant. Had there after either enquired into the matter himself or would have entrusted it to some one else for inquiry as contemplated under section 202, Cr. P. C. In these circumstances of the case I accept this petition and quash the inquiry proceedings conducted by the two officers with a direction that the complaint may be entertained afresh and dispose of in accordance with law.
Proceedings quashed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer