Find a Lawyer

MST. RIFFAT SHAHEEN versus DISTRICT PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION, RAWALPINDI THROUGH CHAIRMAN

Article 44 (k) and (m) (ii) (iii) of the Constitutional Code (XLV of 1860), section 337 F (v) / 452/420/406/506/34 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 of the Constitution During the investigation of the authority District Public Safety Commission's scope of investigation against them, the accused filed an application under Article 44 (i) (k) of the Police Order 2002, to which the District Public Safety Commission was requested. It alleges that the FIR Fact Finding Commission came to the conclusion that the FIR was based on false information and that the machinery of law was being executed unjustly against the accused. M The step call (m) (ii) should be canceled under the provisions. (iii) relied upon by the accused in Article 44, 2002 of the Police Order 2002, provided that the District Public Safety Commission, upon receipt of notification of the investigation of the facts, direct it to be sent to the Police District Police. Take legal action against the offending police officer and if no action is taken in accordance with this proposal, the matter will be referred to the provincial government by the Provincial Public Safety and Police Complaints Commission for action under the appropriate law police order, 2002, or code of conduct. Was to be reported. The Regulator, or any other law that is subject to the investigation of criminal cases, was not authorized or authorized by the District Public Safety Commission to direct the investigating agency to suspend the case; the Commission asked the role of the investigating officer. Instead of accepting, the investigator was overworked. The D-section PO and the head of the investigative commission did not have the authority to allow the investigating agency to prosecute any criminal case under investigation. online advocate from Tarbela lawyer