Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

GHULAM FARID versus STATE


Criminal Code of Conduct (CRPC) Section 439 Amendment (Criminal) Session Judge Closing the Prosecution Case Without Investigating the Investigation Officer That Police is Negligent and Complex Behavior Affecting the Service of Such Police Officer, No drastic action was taken by the trial judge to cause investigative proceedings. The officer's case was closed, held, not appropriate and the trial judge committed material misconduct, allowed a review of the circumstances, and ordered the trial court to act in accordance with the law [ Witness

1983 P Cr. L J 777

[Lahore]

Before Muhammad Sharif, J

GHULAM FARID----Petitioner

Versus

THE S TATE AND OTHERS-Respondents

Criminal Revision No. 39 of 1982/BWP, heard on 2nd November, 1982.

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-

-----S.439-Revision (criminal)-Sessions Judge closing prosecution case without examining Investigating Officer on ground that Police was careless and adapting dilatory attitude in effecting service of such Police Officer-No coercive measures taken by trial Judge to cause appearance of Investigating Officer-Closure of case, held, not proper and trial Judge committed material irregularity, in circumstance-Revision allowed and trial Court directed to proceed in accordance with law.-[Witness.

Nazir Ahmad Bhatti for Petitioner.

Atta Muhammad Baloch for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 2nd November, 1982.

JUDGMENT

This revision petition has been directed against the judgment dated 24-6-1982 pronounced by Rao Iqbal Ahmad Khan, the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar who closed the prosecution case, as according to him the police was careless and had adopted a dilatory attitude in effecting the service of the Investigating Officer who has retired from service.

2. A cursory glance of the impugned order shows that no coercive measures were taken for procuring the appearance of Abdul Majeed, the investigating officer. The investigating officer was summoned about eleven times and it was reported that he had gone away and was not available. In my view coercive measures should have been taken to cause the appearance of the investigating officer by the learned Sessions Judge and the order regarding the closure of evidence is nut proper. The learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar has committed material irregularity in the pronouncement of the impugned order. I, therefore, accept this revision petition and quash the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge, Bahawalnagar, dated 24-6-1982. The learned Sessions Judge is directed to effect the service of the investigating officer by resorting to coercive measures and after recording his statement should proceed further.

Revision allowed

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
famous lower court advocate from Ghuzdar lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.