Find a Lawyer

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑

‑‑‑ S. 265‑C‑Private complaint against person accused of similar offence‑Documents required to be attached with private complaint and copies to be given to accused. ‑[Complaint].

(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-‑‑

‑‑‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 265‑C-- Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S. 82‑Argument. that since the commitment proceedings were done away with by Ordinance XII of 1971, interest of accused facing trial on a charge of murder was protected by provision of S. 265‑C, Cr. P. C. which was to be construed liberally in the sense that copies of evidence oral or documentary should be made available to accused in a private complaint before commencement of trial appearing to have merit which required fuller consideration by a‑ larger Bench in an appropriate case ‑Where all documents required by accused were available on record, such argument need not be considered.

Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Khalil Ramdey, Additional Advocate‑General, Punjab and Nemat Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for the State.

Abdul Asim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record‑ for Respondents No. 2 to 5.

Date of hearing : 3rd February, 1986.

ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J

.‑Facts of this petition are briefly that 6 persons were accused of the murder of Muhammad Akram, a brother of Mian Manzar Ali (respondent No. 2). After investigation the police only placed Muhammad Ahmad (petitioner No. 2) in Column No. 3 of the challan but declared the remaining 5 persons innocent and placed them in Col. No. 2 thereof It, however, added 3 other persons, namely Noor Muhammad, Muhammad Bakhsh and Ahmad Qureshi, as accused and placed them in Col. 3 of the challan although they had not been mentioned in the F. I. R.

Feeling aggrieved the complainant filed a private complaint against the present petitioners. As such two cases were pending trial with respect to the same murder, one based on the police record and the other on the private complaint filed by respondent No. 2.

2. According to ground (4) of the present petition the petitioners were summoned by the trial Court as accused persons in the complaint case Code order, dated 23‑6‑1984 and after completion of service copies of the relevant documents, as required under the law, were given to them (i.e. the petitioners) on 5‑8-1984 and the case was adjourned for prosecution evidence.

Subsequently, however, when a police officer was examined the defence counsel appearing for the accused raised an objection that the private complaint was defective and that the accused petitioners were prejudiced by the absence of certain documents which, according to him, were required to accompany the private complaint and the copies whereof ought to have been supplied to the accused petitioners in view of the provisions of subsection (2) of section 265(C) of the Cr. P. C., which reads as follows :‑

"Section 265‑C (2).‑In ail cases instituted upon a complaint in writing‑

(a) the complaint shall‑‑

(i) state in the petition of complaint the substance of the accusation, the names of his witness and the gist of the evidence which he is likely to adduce at the trial ; and

(ii) within three days of the order of the Court under section 204 for issue of process to accused, tile in the Court for supply to the accused, as many copies of the complaint and any other document which he has filed with his complaint as the number of the accused ; and

(b) copies of the complaint and any other documents which the complainant has filed therewith and the statements under section 200 or section 202 shall be supplied free of cost to the accused not later than seven days before the commencement of the trial."

This objection was overruled by the learned trial Court. The petitioners, therefore, went up to the High Court through a Criminal Revision (No. 515/85), which was dismissed, vide the impugned judgment.

Feeling aggrieved the petitioners filed a petition for leave to appeal (No. 8/86). We issued notice to the Advocate‑General in response whereof learned Additional Advocate‑General appeared.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General at considerable length. We, there fore, feel it proper to convert the petition into appeal and dispose it of as such. Ordered accordingly.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the documents which the petitioner's counsel required to be attached with the private complaint and copies whereof he requires to be given to them were:

"(i) Memos. of recoveries from the accused petitioners ;

(ii) Post‑mortem examination or medical report ; and

(iii) the site plan.

5. It was admitted before us by the petitioner's counsel that no recovery had been effected from any of the five petitioners who have been placid in Column No. 2 while memo. of recovery' relating to weapon recovered from Muhammad Ahmad, who was challaned by the police, is available on the police file. Similarly, tile post‑mortem examination report' as well as the site plan' are available on the police file copies whereof have been supplied to the accused party under subsection (1) of section 265‑C Cr. P. C. There can thus be no grievance with regard to the non‑supply of copies of these documents, which have admittedly been given to the accused in the police case.

5‑A. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that since the commitment proceedings have been done away with by the amendment in the Criminal Procedure Code by the Law Reforms Ordinance [No. XII] of 1972, interest of the accused facing trial on a charge of murder has been protected by the provisions of section 265‑C which requires copies of the evidence sought to be produced against them be given to them seven days prior to the commencement of the trial. He submitted that this provision was inserted so that the accused may know, before they were sent up to stand their trial in a charge punishable with death, as to what evidence they shall have to meet at the trial. He submitted further that in the case of private complaints against persons accused of similar offences, the same safeguards were intended to be provided by the Legislature by subsection (2) of section 265‑C, Cr. P. C. and that the provisions of this subsection should be construed liberally to mean that copies of evidence oral or documentary should be made available to the accused in a private complaint before the commencement of the trial.

6. While this contention appears to have merit and may require fuller consideration by a larger Bench of this Court in an appropriate case, but in view of the circumstances of this particular case where all the documents required by the accused are already available on the record this contention therefore need not be considered in this case.

7. In view of the fact that the objections raised by the petitioners with regard to the non‑availability of the three documents mentioned in paragraph 3 above, has no merit, we do not consider this a fit case for interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

M. B. A. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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