Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 7‑T of 1987, decided on 15th February, 1987.
‑‑S. 185(2)‑‑Consolidation of cases‑‑Two cases registered on different dates at places under jurisdiction of different High Courts‑‑Since offences for which accused was to be tried were two independent offences, provisions of S. 182(2), Cr.P.C. were not attracted‑‑Accused, having applied for his personal convenience, held, was not entitled to consolidation of cases at one place in circumstances.
Iqbal Ahmad for Petitioner.
M. Nawaz Abbasi, Asstt. A.‑G. for the State.
Ghulam Mustafa Qazi has moved this application under section 185(2), Cr.P.C. He requests for consolidation of two cases‑‑one F.I.R. No. 251/85, dated 25‑2‑1985 under sections 18‑A and 23 of the Emigration Ordinance, 1979, registered against him at Karachi; the other vide No. 188/86 under section 17/18/22 of the Emigration Ordinance, A 1979, registered at Police Station, F.I.A., Passport Cell, Rawalpindi.
I don't think it is necessary to discuss the facts of this case. The sole question to be examined is whether section 185(2), Cr.P.C. is applicable and the petitioner has a case for consolidation of two cases or not.
Without formally admitting this petition, I sent for the Assistant Advocate‑General and directed him to inform the Investigating Officer to be present on the next date.
The grounds for consolidation are that the petitioner has been involved due to enmity with certain high ups of F.I.A. at Karachi and Rawalpindi are part of the same transaction; hence separate trial is not justified.
Section 185(2), Cr.P.C. is to the following effect:‑‑
"Where two or more Courts not subordinate to the same High Court have taken cognizance of the same offence, the High Court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced may direct the trial of such offender to be held in any Court subordinate to it, and if it so decided all other proceedings against such person in respect of such offence shall be discontinued. If such High Court, upon the matter having been brought to its notice, does not so decide, any other High Court, within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction such proceedings are pending may give a like direction, and upon its so doing all other such proceedings shall be discontinued."
The Assistant Advocate‑General as well as the officer of the F.I . A . opposed the request on the ground that it is not the same offence for which the petitioner is to be tried in two independent offences; hence section 185(2) is not attracted.
The stance of the Assistant Advocate‑General is correct. It is for his personal convenience that the petitioner has put in this application. Under the law he is not entitled to the consolidation of two cases at one place. Dismissed.
S. A. /G‑13/L Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer