Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 201 of 1986, decided on 27th March, 1986.

‑‑S. 561‑A & 190‑‑Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act (XL of 1958), S.5‑‑Sessions Judge while disposing of a bail application examined petitioner, a doctor in Government service and observed that he did not examine immediately victim boy who was produced before him and had falsely stated before Court that examination of victim was not conducted because parties told him that they were going to compromise' Sessions Judge sent no complaint against petitioner but made a direction that matter be reported against the doctor‑‑Petitioner being a public servant, cognizance could not be taken under S.190, Cr.P.C: and investigation had to be conducted under Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 for taking action against him‑‑Order of Sessions Judge whereby directions were issued for proceeding against petitioner was set aside in circumstances.

Ghulam Haider Memon for Petitioner.

Syed Sarfraz Ahmad, A.A.‑G. for the State.

The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dadu, dated 9‑3‑1986,whereby while disposing of the bail application he recorded that "I had called the doctor in the Court who has himself admitted before me that the victim boy was produced before him by the police for medical examination, but he did not conduct the examination as they told him that they are going to compromise the matter. The duty of the doctor was to examine the victim at once but I think that he has stated the above facts before me falsely just to save himself from the allegation of corruption. This is very serious matter and, therefore, let it be reported to Circle Officer Anti -Corruption, Dadu for taking proper action according to law. Copy of the order should also be sent to Secretary Health, Government of Sind for his perusal and necessary action:"

Learned counsel submits that the learned Sessions Judge has no jurisdiction to pass the order impugned in this petition against the petitioner.

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.A.‑G. The petitioner was neither a witness nor an accused. The learned Sessions Judge while disposing of the bail application had examined the doctor. The petitioner is admittedly a public servant and investigation has to be conducted under Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958. The learned Sessions Judge has not sent a complaint but only made a direction that matter be reported. He could not take cognizance under section 190, Cr.P.C. as the petitioner is a public servant. The aggrieved persons are at liberty to move the machinery of law for the registration of any case if illegal gratification had been demanded by the petitioner.

With this observation the order so far it relates to the petitioner is set aside.

M.Y.H./G‑11/K Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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