Role of Prosecutors 0

Role of Prosecutors
By
Qaiser Javed Mian
Director Research/Faculty Member,
Punjab Judicial Academy, Lahore
A police report under section 173 of the

Code
including
a
report
of
cancellation of the first information
report or a request for discharge of a
suspect or an accused shall be
submitted to a Court through the
Prosecutor appointed under this Act.
1. Abdul Hafeez Junejo Versus The State

2010 YLR 470
Before Sajjad Ali Shah, J
Application of accused challenging legality of order of change of section of
Penal Code ---Applicant/accused originally was charged under Ss.316/337-K/34
P.P.C., but on the direction of District Public Prosecutor S.316, P.P.C was
deleted and S.302 P.P.C, was incorporated---Counsel for applicant contended
that such change of section of P.P.C was made on the direction of District Public
Prosecutor who had no authority to direct such change and that neither material
produced was considered nor there was any application of mind through a
speaking order---Validity---Conduct of prosecution on behalf of government
was the responsibility of the Prosecutors and every report under S.173,, Cr.P.C.
including the report for cancellation of F.I.R. or discharge of a suspect or an
accused had to be filed in the court after same was scrutinized by the Public
Prosecutor---Prosecutors had the powers to return such report to officer
incharge of a Police Station or the Investigating Officer, if he found it defective
for the removal of identified defect---As result of such scrutiny as an expert his
opinion could be placed before the court for its convenience and consideration,
without any binding force---Prosecutor having expertise in the field was in a
better position to opine that on the basis of the investigated fact accused could
be tried under a specific provision and in the present case, the fact that the
accused persons being officers/officials of Public, could not be ignored---In view
of such clear mandate provided to the Prosecutor, the opinion of District Public
Prosecutor appeared to be in consonance with such mandate and the
acceptance thereof by the Investigating Officer followed by changes of section of
Penal Code could not be questioned---Court was ultimately to decide the
provisions with which accused was charged.
2. Tanveer Hussain Qureshi and 8 others

Versus
District Public Prosecutor, Sialkot and 2 others.
2009 P Cr.L J 1043.
Before M.A. Zafar, J
District Public Prosecutor while scrutinizing the cancellation report submitted
by the Investigating Officer in the case, did not agree with the same and
directed the S.H.O. to prepare challan under S.173, Cr.P.C. against the
accused for their trial in the Court in accordance with law---Validity---Sections
9 and 10 of the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions
and Powers) Act, 2006, did not authorize the Public Prosecutor to direct for
submission of report/challan under S.173, Cr.P.C. against the accused for
their trial or to recommend Departmental inquiry or registration of criminal
case against the Food Inspector--Public Prosecutor had no authority to
assume and abdicate the function, authority and jurisdiction of Trial Court
and he had traveled beyond his jurisdiction and committed a grave illegality
by issuing the aforesaid directions to S.H.O.---Function of Public Prosecutor
was only to pin point the defects in investigation as well as in the report
and to direct the Investigating Agency to remove the same---Trial Court,
however while passing orders even on the cancellation report could issue
necessary direction to the Investigating Officer after examining and perusing
the available material to submit challan against the accused---Public
Prosecutor had no jurisdiction to direct the S.H.O. for doing the same--Impugned direction was set aside and the constitutional petition was accepted
accordingly.
3. Rasoolan Bibi Versus Additional Session Judge and others

PLD 2009 Lahore 135
Before Khurshid Anwar Bhinder, J
Petitioner had called in question order passed by Ex-Officio Justice of
peace, dismissing the petition under Ss.22-A & 22-B, Cr. P.C. filed
against order passed by the District Public Prosecutor concerned
deleting S.324,P.P.C. in the case F.I.R. registered under
Ss.324/354/337-A(i)/337-F(i)/337-L(ii)/34,
P.P.C.---Validity---Under
provisions of S.9(7) of Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service
(Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006, District Prosecutor
had the powers to scrutinize the available evidence and applicability
of offences against all or any of accused as per facts and
circumstances of the case---Deletion or insertion of any offence fell
within the exclusive domain of the District Prosecutor---Question
whether the District Prosecutor had rightly deleted S.324, P.P.C.,
would be seen by the Trial Court at the time of framing the charge,
but petitioner could not assail such an order either under provisions of
Ss. 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C. or in constitutional jurisdiction of the High
Court as it would amount to interfering with the process of
investigation which was not the mandate of law---Ex-Officio Justice of
Peace had rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner, in
circumstances.
4. Lal Khan and another

Versus
Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali Jhang and 6 Others
2010 P Cr. L J 182 [Lahore]
Before Kazim Ali Malik, J
Under S.9 of Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution,

Functions and Powers) Act, 2006, the prosecutor was required to
scrutinize the report under S.173, Cr. P.C. in order to decide as to
whether or not same was fit for submission before the court of
competent jurisdiction---Public Prosecutor, mechanically submitted
the challan in court without application of legal mind---Under S.
190(1)(b), Cr. P.C., the court would take cognizance of the offence
and not of the offender---In the present case Trial Court took
cognizance of the challaned accused in utter disregard of said
mandatory provisions of law---Investigating Agency, the prosecution
and the Trial Court, in circumstances had completely failed to
discharge the obligations cast on them by the law.
Waqar Ilias and another v. The State PLD 1993 Quetta 49 ref
5. Allah Yar Versus Hussain Ali and another

PLD 2009 Lahore 87
Before Muhammad Akram Qureshi, J
S.449 Cr.P.C--- Withdrawal from prosecution---Rule of caution--Guide lines---Court, in view of the discretionary power vested in
the Public Prosecutor to withdraw from prosecution of a case
under S.494, Cr.P.C. acts in a supervisory capacity to see that
such power is not used arbitrarily and contrary to public interest
causing interference with the ordinary course of justice---Court must
satisfy itself about the reasons advanced by the public prosecutor
.
Any executive opinion of the District Prosecutor counselling
the case should not have prevailed upon the said judicial order
of the Trial Court---Trial Court should not have permitted the
withdrawal of the case by a mechanical order---Impugned order
being not in accordance with the dictums of Superior Courts, was
illegal,
6. Tariq Habib Versus The State

2009 YLR 1364 [Karachi]
Before Mrs. Qaiser Iqbal, J
Similarly on the receipt of a report for sanction Deputy District Public
Prosecutor, despite endorsing his opinion, directly issued a direction
to the Investigating Officer for submitting challan in the Court--Magistrate, without applying his judicial mind passed a stereotyped
order without adhering to the provisions of law and examination of
record, acting arbitrarily violating the principles of natural justiceMagistrate thus had failed to exercise its discretion in a lawful
manner by deciding the matter in a slipshod manner without
giving cogent reasons and considering the material on record---For
disposal of the investigating report, Magistrate was required under
the law to act reasonably, fairly, justly and assigning reasons
justifying his order---Impugned order having been passed by the
Magistrate on the basis of report of the District Public Prosecutor
without application of his own independent mind, was not warranted
under the law and the same was quashed accordingly.
7. Bahar Ali and 2 others Versus The State and another

PLD 2008 Peshawar 28
Before Syed Yahya Zahid Gillani, J
S.8(2) of the North-West Frontier Province Prosecution Service

(Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2005 makes a S.H.O.
bound to send copy of each F.I.R. of his police station to District
Public Prosecutor and it bestows an extraordinary responsibility on
District Public Prosecutor to inspect F.I.Rs. and wherever necessary
to Suo Motu issue necessary guideline to investigating officer and
that would be in the shape of Direction, to the Head of
Investigation. He can also inspect, scrutinize and supervise the
whole Investigation process of the cases. While reporting to
Government under section 8(6) of the Act, the District Public
Prosecutor can highlight lapses of the investigating officer in acute
cases of negligence for appropriate departmental level punitive
action to promote sense of responsibility and accountability in the
investigating officers
8. Muhammad Ashraf alias Bhuller Versus The State

2008 YLR 1462 [Lahore]
Before Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon,J
Investigating Officer on the basis of statements of many persons
appearing in defence had found the accused innocent and had placed
him in Column No. 2 of the challan, but on the direction of District Public
Prosecutor had placed his name in Column No. 3 of the challan, which
fell outside the purview of the duties of the District Public
Prosecutor and no legal sanctity was attached to his opinion qua
the guilt of accused--PLD 1954 Sindh 256 and 1983 SCMR 370 ref.
It is always the Court which is to charge the accused under the relevant
provisions of law keeping in view the evidence available on record
regarding the crime alleged and not the District Public Prosecutor.
No Court can order Investigating Officer to submit challan while placing
the name of accused in column Nos.2, 3 or 4, rather Court can only
direct the Investigating Officer to submit final report after completing
investigation.
1983 SCMR 370 ref.
9. Fayyaz Ahmed and another Versus The State and others

2008 P Cr. L J 805 [Lahore]
Before Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan and Hasnat Ahmad Khan, JJ
Report under S. 173 Cr. P.C was forwarded to the Public Prosecutor
Anti-terrorism Court who, after holding that facts of the case did not
attract the provisions of S.7 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, directed
Station House Officer to submit the challan to the District Prosecutor
after deleting the offence under S. 7 of the Act---Said order was
challenged by the complainant in constitutional petition---Validity--Section 9 of Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 did not authorize the Public
Prosecutor to delete the offence under S.7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997---Public Prosecutor Anti-Terrorism Court had no authority to
assume and abdicate the function, authority and jurisdiction of the Trial
court to decide the question of jurisdiction or applicability of the
relevant section
Mirza Shaukat Baig and others v. Shahid Jamil and others PLD 2005 SC
530 and Muhabbat Ali another v. The State 2007 SCMR 142 ref.
10. Muhammad Ramzan Versus Station House Officer

2011 PLD 175
LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
Even after the completion of the investigation

and submission of a report under S.173 Cr.P.C.
petitioner, would have another remedy before
the Trial Court for redressal of his grievance --Fate of a criminal case depended upon the
contents of F.I.R. and the prosecution
evidence, and not on provisions of offence,
under which the F.I.R. was registered by the
Police; as the courts were not bound by the
ipse dixit of Police.
11. Javed Iqbal Versus

2011 P Cr. L J 447
S.H.O
Conduct and manner of investigation was

not normally to be scrutinized by the
High
Court
in
its
constitutional
jurisdiction which would amount to
interference in the Police investigation--Constitutional petition was dismissed.
12.
Syed Faraz Shah

Versus
2011 MLD 535
State
Registration
of
criminal
case---Taking
cognizance by the court---Registration of a
criminal case was entirely a different
phenomenon from the one, pertaining to the
taking of cognizance by a court of law on the
report under S.173, Cr.P.C---Complaint within the
meaning of S.195 Cr.P.C., could be made a part of
the prosecution record, even after the registration
of F.I.R.; as no compelling restriction was available
in that regard.
13.
Sabir Ali Arian Versus

2011 P Cr. L J 732
State
KARACHI HIGH COURT, SINDH
S.173---Magistrate disagreeing with the police report

recommending/suggesting/seeking disposal of F.I.R. in class,
directed police to submit the charge sheet against the
accused persons---Applicant/accused contended that the
Magistrate could not order the challan to be submitted--Validity---Magistrate dealing with the report under S.173,
Cr.P.C. though acted in administrative capacity, yet he had
to pass a speaking order---Court below had observed the
cases of both the complainant and the accused were
supported by their witnesses---Veracity of witnesses could be
determined by the Trial Court only after recording evidence--Magistrate had given reasonable and plausible explanation
for disagreeing with the police report and rightly ordered the
challan to be filed in prescribed proforma in the court
competent to try the offence---Where Magistrate arrived at a
conclusion contrary to the police report which sought disposal
or cancellation of F.I.R. as B or C class, he had to make an
order for submission of challan in prescribed form---Accuseds
application was dismissed in circumstances.
14.
Fida Hussain
Versus
Government of Singh through Home Secretary
2011 MLD 766.

Proceedings under S.173, Cr.P.C. are of

administrative nature and can be
challenged before High Court by invoking
inherent jurisdiction of High Court under
S.561-A, Cr.P.C.
15.
Syed Wahid Bux Shah alias Chacho Shah

Versus
State
2011 MLD 64
Second F.I.R. in respect of the same offence--Judicial Magistrate refused to accept the
Investigating Officers recommendation for
cancellation of the second F.I.R.-Validity -Second F.I.R. seemed to be fabricated as
reported by the Investigating Officer in the wake
of submission of challan in respect of the first
F.I.R.---Magistrate passed impugned order in
haste after discussing evidence which was
not permissible under S.173, Cr.P.C. Second
F.I.R after the first one could not be considered
as true---Impugned order was set aside and
proceedings qua second F.I.R. were quashed .
16. Noor Muhammad Khan

Versus
State
2010 YLR 2249
PESHAWAR HIGH COURT-NWFP
Contention
of
petitioner/complainant
was
that
submission of report under S.173 by Police Official other
than S.H.O., was bad in the eyes of law and could not
be acted upon by the Magistrate and that allegations
contained in F.I.R. could only be resolved after recording
evidence---Validity---Under provisions of S.173 , Cr.P.C.
report of inquiry was to be submitted by the Incharge of
Police Station through Public Prosecutor---Under Police
Order, 2002, function of the Police Department had been
reorganized and under said reorganized system, S.H.O
was replaced by other Police Officer belonging to
the Investigating Department---In the present case
report under S.173, Cr.P.C. having been submitted
by Sub-Inspector, Incharge Investigation, same was
in accordance with the Police Order, 2002, which
could not be objected.
17.
Asad Zaman Versus

Muhammad Sareer
2010 PLD 54
PESHAWAR HIGH COURT-NWFP
Investigating Officer had the sole prerogative to

put the name of an Accused person in column
No. 2 or in column No.3, subject of course as a
result of his investigation which could not be
undone by any judicial forum; or for that matter
by superior officer of his department or by the
Public Prosecutor; or Inspector Legal etc. neither
under Cr.P.C., North-West Frontier Province
Prosecution Service Act, 2005 nor under Police
Order, 2002. However, it could be done under
reinvestigation.
18. Mian Muhammad Asif
Versus
S.S.P. Operation, Lahore
2010 YLR 944
Lahore-High-Court-Lahore
Report under S.173, Cr.P.C was not signed by the S.H.O

concerned, which was a violation of the mandatory
provisions of the Police Rules---Investigating Officer prima
facie, being in league with the accused had declared him
innocent in a clandestine manner---S.S.P. (Investigation) in
such, circumstances had entrusted the investigation to S.P.
Headquarters, on the application moved by the complainant
for transfer of the same---Challan already submitted by the
S.H.O against law and without collecting any evidence
could not be made a basis for stopping re-investigation in
the case, which was necessary in the given circumstances--Magistrate was restrained from passing any order on the
application of the accused presented under S. 249-A, Cr.
P.C. for acquittal, till the matter was reinvestigated and
fresh final report under S. 173, Cr. P.C was submitted in the
Court---Final verdict had to be passed by the Court after
evaluating the evidence adduced before it during the trial--Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.
19. Jahangir Versus State

2010 PCrLJ 769
Police report under S. 173, Cr.P.C.,

showed that police during investigation,
found accused persons to be innocent and
their names were placed in column No.2--Report of the Police though was not
binding upon the court, but it was a
relevant circumstance to be taken into
consideration while determining such like
question.
20.
Muhammad Farooq Qureshi

Versus
Judicial Magistrate Section 30
2010 P Cr L J 261
S.173---Report of Police Officer---Scope---Challan was
not the substitution of report under S.173, Cr.P.C challan
could only be submitted when Investigating Agency
would come to the conclusion that accused was found
guilty and recommended to be tried under the relevant
offence, whereas if accused was not recommended to
be tried in the case, then the report under S.173,Cr.P.C
was to be submitted without any challan---No power
vested with any court including High Court to override
the legal command and to direct S. H.O., either not to
submit investigation report (challan) or to submit the
report in a particular manner i.e. against only such
persons as the court desired or only with respect to such
offences as the court wished.
21.
Muhammad Farooq Qureshi

Versus
Judicial Magistrate Section 30
2010 P Cr L J 261
Police prepared a cancellation report and placed it
before the Magistrate who disagreed with said report and
ordered to complete challan under S. 173, Cr.P.C. and
to produce before the court---Validity---Investigation of a
criminal case and the resultant arrival by the Police at a
conclusion regarding the guilt or innocence of accused
lay within the domain and prerogative of the Police over
which no other authority had any control---Magistrate
while disagreeing with the discharge report had travelled
beyond the jurisdiction in directing the Police to submit
the challan against accused---
Magistrate was not supposed to direct arrest of accused

or submission of the challan or recording of evidence--Matter should be left to the Investigating Agency, to
submit report under S,173, Cr.P.C.---It would be open for
the Investigating Officer to record his own opinion
regarding the guilt or innocence of accused in his report
under S.173, Cr.P.C. and if the final opinion of the
Investigating Officer was that accused was guilty, then
he would be at liberty to submit the challan
accordingly---Impugned order to the extent of directing
the Police to submit the challan was without jurisdiction
and lawful authority and same was set aside--proceedings initiated on the basis of said order were
declared to be without legal effect---S.H.O concerned
was directed to file report under S.173, Cr.P.C. without
being influenced by the impugned order.
22. Lal Khan

Versus
Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali Jhang

2010 P Cr L J 182
In case the Investigator would fail to collect sufficient

evidence in support of the charge/allegation, he was
required to prepare negative final report under S.173
read with S. 169, Cr.P.C., and to lay it before the Area
Magistrate and it was prerogative of the Area Magistrate
to agree or disagree with the Police investigation---Under
S. 190(1)(b), Cr.P.C. the Trial Court would take
cognizance of the offence and not of the offender---If the
Trial Magistrate would find that sufficient evidence was
available against accused, he was competent to take
cognizance of the offence on submission of
negative/cancellation report---Contrary to that if the
evidence in support of the charge was sufficient, the
Investigator would submit final report under S.173 read
with S.170 Cr.P.C. before the court---
After submission of challan in the court, the prosecutor

was required to prosecute cause of the State by
producing material falling within the definition of legal
evidence--- Function of the Trial Court was to form an
opinion after perusing the Police report, all the
documents and statements filed by the prosecution as to
whether or not sufficient grounds were available to
proceed with the trial of the challaned accused in order
to determine the question of his guilt or innocence--Section 265-D, Cr.P.C. governing the subject had laid
down that if sufficient ground was available to proceed
with the trial, the court would frame a charge against
accused; on the other hand, if some material would not
exist to connect the challaned accused with the alleged
crime; and the Trial Court considered that probability of
accused being convicted of any offence or the charge
was groundless, accused would be acquitted at any
stage of the case under S.265-K or 249-A, Cr.P.C.
23. Ch. Khalid Mushtaq Versus Special Judge (Admn.)

2010 PLD 114
Direction of Court to police to submit challan under a

specified section---Jurisdiction---Scope---Anti-Terrorism
Court had directed the Investigating Officer to submit
challan under S.365-A, PPC in the court---Validity--Special Court constituted under Anti-Terrorism Act,
1997, had traveled beyond its jurisdiction while directing
the Investigating Officer to submit challan in the court
under S.365-A PPC, which was the sole job of the
Investigating Agency to submit a report under S.173,
Cr.P.C. before the Court of competent jurisdiction--Even S.19 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, did not
empower to the Trial Court to issue such type of
direction to the police---Impugned order was not
sustainable in law and the same was consequently setaside---Constitutional petition was accepted accordingly.
Submission of final report of investigation by

police in Court---Court not vested with the power
to direct police to submit challan under a
specified provision of law---Mandate of law--Section 173, Cr.P.C. is the only provision in the
Code of Criminal Procedure enabling the
concerned S.H.O. to submit a report of the result
of every investigation in the prescribed manner
in the Court---No Court including the High Court
has the power to override the said legal
command and to direct the S.H.O. either not to
submit the said report i.e., the challan or to
submit the same in a particular manner either
against only such persons as the Court desires
or only under such offences as the Court wishes.
24.
Imran Versus Liaquat Ali

2010 YLE 3288
KARACHI HIGH COURT SINDH
Filing of final report by Investigation Officer for cancelling

case under C class---Disagreement of Magistrate with
such report due to availability of sufficient evidence on
record to connect accused with offence, thus, directed
Investigating Officer to submit report accordingly--Validity---After filing of such report, Magistrate had option
either to agree or disagree with the same, but in case of
disagreement, he could order further investigation of
case by police, and in case when no investigation
required to be conducted, then he could take cognizance
of offence in terms of S.190, Cr.P.C. Magistrate had no
power or authority to direct Police Investigating
Officer to file another report under S.173, Cr.P.C.,
from the one disagreed by him---High Court set aside
impugned order and directed Magistrate to pass
appropriate orders on such report in accordance
with law.
25.
Mst. Eram
Versus Muhammad Adnan Chaudhry

2010 YLR 1580
KARACHI HIGH COURT SINDH
Report of police officer to be examined judicially

by Magistrate---Magistrate while exercising his
powers under S.173, Cr.P.C. does not act in a
mechanical manner---Order of Magistrate must
show his application of mind, his opinion must
be supported by reasons and his conclusion
must be laced with evidence showing application
of judicial mind---Despite all this, order passed
by Magistrate is not a judicial order, but is an
administrative order, however, it must be a
judicious order.
26. Meenhan Khan versus

S.P. Investigation Hyderabad
2010 YLR 40
Karachi-High-Court-Sindh
Case was recommended to be disposed of in class B on that
basis, however Superintendent of Police (Investigation) had
not concurred with the said report and ordered for disposal of
case under class A---Acting on such order, a report under
S.173, Cr.P.C was submitted before the Magistrate who
without having recourse to the material available with Police
passed the impugned order---Sections 457 & 380, P.P.C. and
S. 14 of Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood)
Ordinance, 1979, were non-compoundable---Magistrate had to
apply his judicial mind while passing such order, which was
conspicuously lacking, and it was not ipsi dixit of the police to
decide the fate of a criminal case---Impugned order being not
speaking one, no justification of such an order was found from
the text of impugned order---Impugned order was set aside
and case was remanded to the court of Judicial Magistrate,
with the direction to pass proper, legal and speaking order
afresh after affording an opportunity of being heard to the
applicant, his witnesses and State Counsel.
27.
Rasool Bux Shaikh

Versus
State
2010 P Cr L J 733
Magistrate while scrutinizing the report under
S.173,Cr.P.C. and passing order thereon, would not act
as a court of law and his order was only an
administrative order; however, it must be a speaking
order giving valid reasons for his conclusion---Fact that
order of Magistrate was an administrative order, would
not mean that Magistrate could act arbitrarily; it could not
be a judicial order, but it must be judicious one--Magistrate had power to disagree with the conclusion
recorded in the Police report---If the Magistrate
disagreed with the police report, he had the option of
ordering further inquiry---Any other option available to
the Magistrate was to take cognizance under S.190,
Cr.P.C.---Magistrate could not order cancellation of F.I.R
which was in respect of offence triable by a Court of
Session.
28. Haji Muhammad Zakria

Versus
2010 P Cr L J 691
State
Said Magistrate on such complaint would

proceed with the complaint filed under S.
200, Cr.P.C and after examining the
evidence would pass appropriate order by
conducting Judicial proceedings without
being influenced by his earlier order
passed under S.173, Cr.P.C., which was
an administrative order judicially made.
29.
Doulat Ali
Versus State
2010 P Cr L J 1311
Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court
Investigation in the case was conducted by a person

who posed himself to be Investigating Officer,
whereas he was not duly authorized by the Chairman
NAB to conduct the investigation in the case under
S. 18(c) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999--Interference of Federal Investigation Agency in the case
was also in violation of S. 18(d) of the Ordinance-- Such violation were not merely technical, but the
entire investigation, inquiry, appraisal of the
evidence and calling of persons for information in
the case and the report submitted under S. 173,
Cr.P.C. by a self-assumed Investigating Officer, were
nullity and without any legal sanction---
30. Dr. Muhammad Aslam Khakhi

Versus
State
2010 PLD 1
Federal-Shariat-Court
Where a court decides to pass a sentence of

imprisonment of an accused for an offence, the
period, if any, during which such accused was
detained in custody, for such offence, whether
before or after submission of report under
section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
or initiation of a trial in a case instituted upon a
complaint, shall be deducted from the quantum
of sentence of imprisonment awarded by the
trial court or it may be adjusted against
imposition of fine if the court so directs
31.
Rehan
Versus
2009 SCMR 181
State
Supreme-Court
Strict adherence of the Investigating Agency to

the provisions of S.173 (1), Cr.P.C. stressed---If
final report cannot possibly be submitted before
or after completion of investigation period
prescribed under S. 167, Cr.P.C., the
Investigating Agency should strictly adhere to
the provisions of S.173 (1), Cr.P.C. and must
submit interim challan through Public Prosecutor
for trial and should not keep in custody the
accused arrested in the case without any legal
justification for indefinite period.
32. Rehan Versus State

2009 SCMR 181
Supreme-Court
Trial should normally commence, if

possible, on the basis of interim report
under S.173, Cr.P.C. which must be
submitted as per mandatory requirement
of proviso to subsection (1) of S. 173,
Cr.P.C.---If the commencement of the trial
is to be postponed, then the Court must
record reasons in writing.
33. Muhammad Aslam (Amir Aslam)

Versus
District Police Officer, Rawalpindi
2009 SCMR 141
Supreme-Court
Accused was in jail for the last over eight months---Not

a single witness had so far been examined.
Formalities of SS. 173 and 344, Cr.P.C. had not been
complied with and challan against the accused had not
been submitted within the stipulated period, resulting in
grave miscarriage of justice---Material on file did not
make out any offence against the accused.
Charge having been framed by Trial Court was no bar
in the way of quashment of proceedings.
F.I.Rs. were quashed.
34.
Shah Nawaz Versus State

2009 YLR 2300
S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), SS.

302/201/148/149---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry--Accused persons though were nominated in the F.I.R.,
but no direct evidence was available on record
regarding murder of the deceased---Though murder of a
human being had been committed, but there was no
reason, especially in the absence of any direct
evidence to connect accused persons with the
alleged crime---None amongst accused persons had
been attributed specific role---During the investigation
two accused persons were found innocent and placed in
column No. 2 in the report submitted under S. 173, Cr.
P.C., while another one was placed in column No.3--Such facts had made case against accused persons
one of further inquiry entitling accused for grant of
bail.
35.
Irshad Muhammad
Versus State
2009 P Cr L J 1458
SS. 156,173 , 170 & 169-Police Order (22 of 2002),

Art.18(6)---Police Rules, 1934---Investigation---Scope--Term investigation has not been defined by Pakistan
Penal Code, 1860 and Criminal Procedure Code, 1898--Combined examination of the Criminal Procedure
Code, 1898, Police Order, 2002 and Police Rules, 1934,
however, makes it manifest that investigation consists of
spot inspection, collection of evidence, ascertainment of
facts in the, light of collected evidence and attending
circumstances of the case and apprehension of accused
provided the collected evidence is sufficient to connect
him with the charge---In case the investigator comes to
the conclusion that the evidence is sufficient, he is
required to prepare final report under S.173 read with S.
170, Cr.P.C., and if he is of the opinion that the evidence
is deficient, then cancellation report is drawn up, in terms
of S. 173 read with S. 169, Cr. P.C.
36.
Hafiz Muhammad Iqbal

Versus
State
2009 P Cr L J 934
Lahore High Court, Lahore
Section 4(h), Cr.P.C. specifically excluded

the report of Police Officer from the domain
of word complaint---Report submitted
under S.173, Cr.P.C. could not be considered
to be a complaint as provided by S.4(h),
Cr.P.C.---Section 195, Cr.P.C., placed a
specific embargo upon the Trial Court to take
cognizance on the report of Police Officer.
37.
Nazima Shahzadi
Versus
S.H.O. Police Station Pindi Ghee District Attock
2009 P Cr L J 751
Lahore High Court, Lahore
Will and consent of the alleged abductee

had, in fact, determined the fate of the charge
of abduction, but the Investigator and District
Public Prosecutor had attached importance
to the Will of her father in utter disregard of
the provisions of S.365-13, P.P.C. as well as
of Ss.375 & 376, P.P.C. on the charge of rape
---No offence whatsoever was made out against
the accused persons---Accused had faced the
agony of investigation for the offence not
committed by them.
38.
Mansabdar
Versus
2009 MLD 641
State
Only one firearm injury suffered by deceased had not been

specifically attributed to any one of said six accused person--Complainant and prosecution witnesses made a vague and
general allegation that six accused person, including
accused resorted to firing in the darkness of night as a result
of which the deceased suffered one fire shot, which proved
fatal; in other words six accused persons including accused
had been lodged judicial lock-up for having caused one
injury to the deceased---Trial Court did not take into
consideration the mode and manner of the incident set up in
the F.I.R.---Accused was extremely old man---Senior
Medical Officer, Jail Hospital found accused patient of
Parkinsonism and his
whole body was shivering
uncontrollably and as a result the iron handcuff injured his
wrist joint---Section 497, first proviso Cr.P.C. had clearly laid
down that any sick or infirm person, accused of an offence
punishable with death or imprisonment for 10 years, could
be released on bail.
39.
Hazaro
Versus
2009 YLR 2464
State
Karachi High Court, Sindh
In the present case while examining the report under

S.173, Cr.P.C., the Magistrate came to the conclusion
that the case did not warrant its disposal in C-class--Investigating Officer had simply non-suited the
complainant on the ground that the witnesses of the
complainant were interested witnesses, but Investigating
Officer was not competent to express such opinion in
support of disposal of case in C-class; it was the
prerogative of the court to determine as to whether
the witnesses were interested witness or not--Magistrate was bound to take appropriate legal action
against the Investigating Officer for his default in noncompliance of the direction
40.
Zufran Khan
Versus
State
2009 YLR 1874
Karachi High Court, Sindh.
Pre-requisite for taking cognizance in the matter, in
circumstances, was missing as the proceedings
proposed to be dropped against the applicant were not
based upon sufficient evidence---Sanction to prosecute
the applicant having not been obtained from the
competent Authority under S.6(5) of Pakistan
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 by the
prosecution, there were no basis for the Trial Court
to proceed with the prosecution against the
applicant---Impugned order was set-aside and
allowing application under S.561-A, Cr.P.C.
proceedings were quashed and applicant was
acquitted from the charges leveled against him.
41.
Sarfaraz Hussain Versus

2009 YLR 1614
State
In criminal administration of justice, the

quality of the evidence was to be
considered by he court irrespective of
the quantity of the evidence and even,
in case, if one witness whose evidence
was sufficiently confidence inspiring and
free from all hypothesis, could be treated
as sufficient and convincing to convict
accused.
42.
Muhammad Hassan Versus State

2009 YLR 1479
Investigating Officer had recommended the disposal of the

case in B-class---Judicial Magistrate however, rejected the
recommendation and directed the Investigating Officer to file
challan within one month---Validity---Where report of
Investigating Officer was in positive, a proper challan on the
proforma within the meaning of clause (b) of subsection (1) of
S.173, Cr.P.C. was to be filed---However, in cases where the
opinion of the Investigating Officer was in negative, the
Investigating Officer normally would file the report giving
details of investigation and the reason for reaching the
conclusion---Report of Investigating officer seeking disposal of
the case under B-class reflected that it had not been filed in
the Proforma prescribed within the meaning of S.173, Cr.P.C.--Magistrate, in circumstances, was well within his right to
direct Investigating Officer to file challan---No case for
interference having been made out, application was
dismissed.
43. Muhammad Zaffar Saleem

Versus State
2009 YLR 489
As many as four police officers had investigated the case and

all of them found the same a false case---Magistrate held that
material available on record required further probe only by the
Trial Court---Magistrate did not concur with the report in B
class and same stood disapproved and Investigating Officer
was directed to submit the final report challan and also to
produce accused in person---Offences alleged in the F.I.R.,
were trial by the Sessions Court and Magistrate could not have
directed submission of challan---Magistrate could only forward
the matter to the Sessions Judge who could have taken the
cognizance of the alleged offence---Regardless of the fact
whether the Magistrate had applied her judicial mind to the
facts stated in the report of the police, since the Magistrate was
not vested with the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
offence, the Magistrate had acted without jurisdiction---Orders
passed by the Magistrate being coram non judice, were
quashed, accordingly.
44.
Matahir Shah Versus

State
2009 MLD 156
S.173--Submission
of
challan--Investigating Officer under law had to
submit a report/summary under S.173,
Cr.P.C. within a particular time to the
concerned Magistrate, who had to
scrutinize the matter on the basis of
material submitted before him by the
Investigating Officer and to pass an
appropriate order and not to act as a Post
Office.
45.
Matahir Shah Versus State

2009 MLD 156
Prima facie it appeared that entire material collected by the

Investigating Officer, was considered by the Magistrate and
then passed the order on merits and discussed all merits and
demands of the case---Validity---Powers of High Court under
S.561-A, Cr.P.C. were to be used not in each and every case,
but rarely in appropriate cases and there must be a material on
the basis of which orders passed by the courts below be set
aside---When two courts below came to the conclusion that no
fruitful result would be achieved, if matter proceeded, no
interference was required---Magistrate was not to fill the lacuna
left by the Investigating Officer and to act as Investigating
Officer of the case or to be a party, but he had only to scrutinize
the matter on available material and it would depend upon him
to agree or disagree with police report---Counsel for applicant
had failed to show any illegality which amounted to an abuse of
the process of law---Orders passed by the two courts below
were proper, legal and in accordance with law and no illegality
or material irregularity was committed by the courts below.
46.
Muhammad Haroon
Versus
2009 PLD 120
State
Final reports were classified into A: true

cases, B: maliciously false cases, C:
neither true nor maliciously false cases and
non-cognizable cases---After re-investigation
of the case, a report that no cognizable offence
was made out against the accused was filed
before Magistrate, who had already taken
cognizance of the case on the basis of previous
investigation---Trial court did not agree for
disposal of the case---Validity---Court was not
bound by arbitrary opinion of Investigating
Officer and had to apply its independent mind to
the facts and circumstances of the case.
47.
Muhammad Rafique
Versus
2008 P Cr L J 351
State
Shariat-Court-Azad-Kashmir
S.
497---Penal
Code
(XLV
of
1860),
SS.
302/324/147/149---Bail, refusal of---Accused had
allegedly killed two persons, father and son, by firing--Post-mortem reports, of the deceased had supported the
causing of fire-arm injuries---Contention that during
investigation only two accused were found guilty of firing
on the deceased persons had no force, because
according to the report under S. 173, Cr.P.C., another
accused had, raised Lalkara telling others not to let the
deceased go alive and still another accused was present
at the place of occurrence armed with a gun---Presence
of other accused persons at the spot armed with lethal
weapons also was not denied and was established by
eyewitnesses---Accused, prima facie, had waylaid,
chased and killed the deceased and being members of
unlawful assembly were not entitled to concession of
bail---Bail was declined to accused in circumstances.
48.
Haleem
Versus -----------2008 PLD 1
Peshawar-High-Court-NWFP
Trial Court taking cognizance after the challan was

put in the court under S. 173, Cr.P.C., could take
cognizance of any offence disclosed by the
material available on the record of the
investigation, even though police had not applied
the relevant penal provisions---Charge could also
be framed in respect of an offence disclosed by the
record---If any section of the relevant law was
omitted from the charge, the court had the powers
to rectify its mistake---
Messrs Shamim Bibi

Versus
Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore
2008 YLR 2017
Lahore High Court, Lahore.
Ex-Officio Justice of Peace could not make any

observation with regard to the nature of offence or
direct addition or deletion of a penal provision as same
exclusively fell within the domain of Investigating
Officer before the challan was submitted; and
thereafter the Trial Court which was fully competent to
add any offence, if made out from the F.I.R. tendered
in terms of S. 173, Cr.P.C. and other material available
on the record at the time of framing of the charge--Parties also had the right to address arguments at the
time of framing of charge in support of their
contentions.
50.
Muhammad Yousaf
Versus
State
2008 P Cr L J 1762
Accused was not named in F.I.R., but his name had

surfaced in the case for the first time through a
supplementary statement made by the complainant
after six days of the alleged occurrenceComplainant had implicated accused exclusively on
the basis of an extra-judicial confession allegedly
made jointly by two accused before the
complainant---Said joint extra-judicial confession
was devoid of any evidentiary value---Complainant,
in the F.I.R., had specifically nominated three
culprits, in supplementary statement made by him,
he exonerated said nominated culprits and instead
introduced five others including accused as the
culprits---
No stolen article had been recovered from the

possession of accused during investigation in
the case---Although a pistol had been recovered
from the custody of accused, during the
investigation, but prima facie, nothing was
available on the record of investigation to
connect said pistol with the alleged offence--Investigation of the case had already been
completed and the report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. had
been submitted by the police and it had expressly
been recorded in the report that accused had
never entered the house where alleged
occurrence had taken place and throughout the
said occurrence; accused kept on standing out in
the street---Case against accused, calling for further
inquiry into his guilt within the purview of subsection
(2) of S. 497, Cr.P.C., he was admitted to bail, in
circumstances.
51.
Fayyaz Ahmed Versus

State
2008 P Cr L J 805
Section 9 of Anti-terrorism Act, 1997

did not authorize the Public Prosecutor
to delete the offence under S. 7 of the
Anti-terrorism Act, 1997.
Public prosecutor, Anti-terrorism Court
while passing the impugned direction, had
traveled beyond his jurisdiction and
authority and had committed a grave
illegality.
52. Manzoor Akbar Turk

Versus
Raja Ashiq Hussain
2008 MLD 728
S. 190(1)(b)---Cognizance of offences by
Magistrate---Magistrate under S.190(1)
clause (b), Cr. P.C. takes cognizance of
an offence upon report made by police
officer under S.173, Cr.P.C., which may
be positive or negative.
53. Muhammad Asghar Versus

State
2008 MLD 717
S. 489-F---Pre-arrest bail, confirmation of---No dispute
existed regarding issuance of cheques to the complainant by
accused---Real controversy in the case requiring
determination was as to whether cheques were issued by
accused dishonestly to defraud the complainant or with bona
fide intention---Matter between the parties was purely of civil
nature, which was already subjudice before the competent
forum---Certificate of Bank Manager had established that
cheques in question had not been dishonored due to lack of
sufficient amount in the account of accused, but encashment
had been refused under his own instructions---Accused,
while issuing the cheques was not having any dishonest
intention to deceive or defraud the complainant which was
the main ingredient of offence under S. 489-F P.P.C--Investigation of the case had been completed and report
under S. 173, Cr.P.C. submitted to the concerned court---No
useful purpose would be served by committing accused to
the police custody---Ad interim pre-arrest bail already
granted to accused, was confirmed, in circumstances.
54.
Tariq Sajjad alias Tahir alias Tahli

Versus
State
2008 MLD 332
S. 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), SS. 337-A(i)(ii) &

337-F(v)/34---Pre-arrest bal, confirmation of---Only one
injury fell under S. 337-A(ii), P.P.C., which was
attributed to co-accused and other injuries in the case
fell under SS.337-A(i) & 337-F(i), P.P.C., which were
bailable---Even otherwise, accused had joined the
investigation and report under S. 173, Cr.P.C. had
been submitted before the Trial Court and no useful
purpose would be served by sending accused to jail--Ad interim pre-arrest bail already granted to accused
was confirmed, in circumstances.
55.
Muhammad Azam
Versus
Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court, Faisalabad
2008 PLD 63
Jurisdiction given to the Special Court by virtue

of S. 1.9(3) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, does
not mean that it has the authority quo fishing
out, the cases from different police stations
and directing the agency to submit challan after
incorporating scheduled offences as the facts of
the case disclose the commission of said
offences---Special Judges even cannot pass
such type of orders on reading the news items
in the newspapers, as suo motu authority or
jurisdiction is not available to them.
If during investigation of the case police had

formed the opinion that only S.365, P.P.C. was
made out, then the procedure to be adopted by
the police was to submit the challan before the
Court of ordinary jurisdiction---Said Court after
perusing the record and taking cognizance of
the matter, if formed the opinion that the data
available on the record was sufficient to attract
the provisions of the scheduled offence, then
that Court was competent to refer the matter to
the Special Court Anti-Terrorism through the
District Attorney or Public Prosecutor---Manner
in which the Special Court through the impugned
order had directed the Investigating Officer to
submit challan after inserting S. 365-A. P.P.C.
was not correct.
56.
Muhammad Ashraf Versus

2008 PLD 578
State
Trial court was competent to frame the

charge even on the basis of the interim
report; but since at that point of time the
opinion of the Medical Officer had not yet
been added by the police in its report, then
upon filing of Report court can charge the
relevant sections.
57.
Muhammad Ashraf Versus

2008 PLD 578
State
Charge once framed, would not

become rigid or irrevocable; it could
be altered or changed under S. 227,
Cr.P.C., if it was so warranted by the
circumstances.
58. Javaid Iqbal

Versus
Additional Inspector General of Police, Lahore
2008 PLD 488
There is no bar against re-investigation of case after

submission of report under S.173, Cr.P.C., yet the fact
remains that ultimately case has to be decided on the basis
of evidence recorded before Trial Court---Purpose of
investigation, as defined under S. 4(1), Cr.P.C. is collection
of evidence by police officer or by any other person who is
authorized by Magistrate in this behalf---As such definition
of investigation does not talk of opinion of police officer
who is only authorized to collect evidence, therefore,
opinion of police officer is neither relevant nor
admissible
in
evidence---Frequent
transfers
of
investigations deprecated.
59.
Syed Hassan Raza

Versus Deedar Hussain Shah
2008 PLD 305
SS.489-F, 504 & 506(2)---Criminal Procedure Code (V of

1898), S.173---Magistrate while disagreeing with the
summary report submitted by the Investigating Officer
with the recommendation for disposal of the case under
B Class, had directed the Investigating Officer to
submit the charge sheet under S.173 Cr.P.C. before the
Court having jurisdiction---Validity---Accused admittedly
had issued the cheque for the amount of Rs.197,000/- in
the name of the complainant, which was subsequently
dishonoured---Accused had himself instructed the
Manager of the Bank concerned to stop payment of the
said cheque through a letter, as the payment had
already been made to the complainant in cash--Accused took a contradictory stand subsequently when
he wrote a letter to complainant acknowledging that the
amount of Rs.197,000/- was still outstanding and he
requested the complainant to get the payment of the said
cheque from the Bank---
Bank informed the accused by means of a letter that the

payment of the said cheque to complainant was still
stopped as per instruction of the accused and the
complainant once again was put at disadvantage---Said
contradictory stand taken by the accused while dealing
with the complainant had, prima facie, made out a case
under S.489-F, P.P.C.---Magistrate under S.173, Cr.P.C.
while taking cognizance of the case was competent to
apply his judicious mind to the summary report and then
to pass the order---Impugned order revealed that it
appeared from the police papers that the investigating
team had disposed of the case under B (false) class on
account of statements of the defence witnesses--Record, however, showed that the accused had given
the cheque, which was bounced for want of
arrangement, as was also clear from the Bank record--Accused had not denied his signatures on the cheque
issued to the complainant and such prima facie evidence
could not be brushed aside---Impugned order did not
suffer form any illegality---Petition was dismissed
accordingly.
60.
Ramshi
Versus
State
2008 YLR 1078
S. 173 Cr.P.C. was not binding on the court and it
was for the court to decide, whether sufficient
material was available before it to join or not some
accused to the case, whose name had been placed
in column No. 2 of the challan---Before summoning an
accused, whose name appeared in column No. 2 to
face the trial, it was not requirement of law that, the
Trial Court should first record evidence, but the court
could directly summon him to stand trial---If
consequent to the police report an accused had been
discharged under S. 63 Cr.P.C., even in that case it
would not mean that he could not be summoned by
the court to stand the trial.
61.
Ghulam Sarwar
Versus
2008 YLR 704
Karachi-High Court-Sindh
State
S. 190---Powers of Magistrates of First Class--All Magistrates of the First Class, were

empowered to take cognizance of any offence--Under S.190(2) Cr.P.C., a Magistrate doing so
of an offence triable exclusively by a Court of
Session, would, without recording any evidence,
send the case to such court for trial---Term
taking cognizance had been judicially
interpreted in its broad and literal sense to mean
taking notice of an offence;
62.
Bader Maqbool
Versus State
2008 MLD 1676
SS.173 & 190---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 324--Purpose of examination of report under S.173 Cr.P.C.--For the purpose of examination of report under S.173,
Cr.P.C., office of Judicial Magistrate, would be
considered in two different categories, one as judicial
officer and other as administrative officer---While
functioning on administrative side, he would discharge his
duties as persona designata and not as a court, and while
discharging his duties as a persona designata, though he
was required to examine the material placed before him,
but was not bound to explain each and every aspect of
case and give its reason for acceptance and rejection--Offence under S. 324, P.P.C. was exclusively triable by the
court of Session---After receiving the report under S. 173,
Cr.P.C., Magistrate was therefore required to forward the
same to the Court of Session as provided under S. 190,
Cr.P.C. without recording evidence.
63.
Naveed Hussain Versus

Rashid Iqbal
2007 P Cr L J 1710
Shariat Court, Azad Kashmir
Notwithstanding the recommendations of the

Investigating Officer regarding cancellation of
case, it could decline to cancel the case and to
proceed as provided under S. 190, Cr.P.C. and
summon accused to face trial---Magistrate or the
court had not to agree with the police report
blindly and pass the order of discharge of
accused in a whimsical and arbitrary manner--Order on such report was an administrative
one---When a Magistrate would concur or refuse
to agree with such police report his order
though administrative in nature, but would
have to be passed in a judicial fashion.
64.
Imran Versus State

2007 P CR L J 721
Shariat-Court Azad-Kashmir
Case of co-accused was almost different from case of

convicted accused as no specific role had been ascribed to
two of the co-accused and infliction of Chhuri blow ascribed
to third co-accused on deceased was also doubtful---Detailed
scrutiny of evidence on record along with prosecution version
put forward in F.I.R. and charge-sheet under S. 173, Cr.P.C.,
had made case of prosecution suspicious and doubtful to the
extent of said co-accused---Medical examination report and
post-mortem report did not corroborate allegations leveled
against co-accused---Prosecution version being inconsistent
and self-contradictory to the extent of co-accused, could not be
relied upon---Benefit of slightest doubt arising in the case would
go in favour of co-accused.
Prosecution had also failed to prove existence of any common
intention or pre-arranged plan.
Trial Court had fallen in grave error to pass an order of
conviction and sentence against co-accused by applying S.34,
P.P.C.---Co-accused were entitled to be acquitted of the
charge.
65.
Muhammad Nasir Cheema

Versus Mazhar Javaid
2007 PLD 31
Supreme-Court
Accused sought quashing of F.I.R. from High Court

under its constitutional jurisdiction---High Court disposed
of the petition with a direction to Station House Officer,
to file final report only against one accused and
under only one offence---Validity---Only provision
relating to the subject which was available in Criminal
Procedure Code. 1898 was S. 173. which commanded
expeditious conclusion of investigations and further
ordained that on conclusion of every investigation, the
concerned Station House Officer would submit a report
of the result thereof in the prescribed manner to
Magistrate competent to take cognizance under S.190,
Cr.P.C---No power vested with any Court, including
High Court to override the legal command and to direct
Station House Officer either not to submit investigation
report (challan) or to submit the report in a particular
manner.
66.
Malik Zahid
Versus
State
2007 YLR 1905
Peshwar-High-Court-NWFP
Investigation was not to be conducted

before registration of the case---Officer
in charge of the police station was bound
to either register or cause to be registered
the F.I.R. as and when written or oral
information was received by him regarding
commission of cognizable offence.
67.
Abdul Wahid
Versus
State
2007 PLD 65
Words of S. 169, Cr.P.C. release him

on his executing a bond with or
without sureties could not be
expounded as having authorized or
empowered Investigating Officer to
discharge accused.
69.
Shahid Hussain
Versus State
2007 YLR 1179
S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), SS. 302/324/337-A

(i), (ii), (vi)/ L(1), (2)/148/149---Bail, grant of---Son of
complainant, according to F.I.R., had been injured by coaccused and in the mid of incident accused had raised
Lalkara upon which co-accused gave injuries to the
injured prosecution witness---Accused had not caused
any injury either to the deceased or to the injured
witness---Whether the accused had shared common
intention with co-accused was a question of further
inquiry---Incident had taken place at the spur of the
moment--- Submission of report under S. 173,
Cr.P.C. was not a bar to the grant of bail to the
accused at any stage of the case.
70. Muhammad Azeem Versus

State
2007 YLR 1036
Petitioner allegedly had confessed his guilt before the
police during his custody, but evidentiary value of such
a confession was next to nothing---Pistol allegedly
recovered in the case had not been secured from
physical possession of accused and nothing was on
record to connect recovered pistol with alleged
offences---Investigation of the case had already been
finalized and a perusal of report submitted under
S.173, Cr.P.C. had shown that during the investigation
allegation against accused regarding firing at
deceased had not been established---Accused had
already been declared to be a child within the purview
of Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000 and a
challan against him had been ordered to be submitted
before a Juvenile Court.
71.
Muhammad Saleem Versus State

2007 YLR 1030
According to F.I.R. itself accused, was empty handed at

that time---Accused had not caused any injury to any
person during alleged occurrence and only role
attributed to him in the F.I.R. was that of catching hold of
deceased and facilitating his co-accused to fire at
deceased which allegation prima facie appeared to be
unbelievable.
Investigation of the case had already been finalized and
report under S.173, Cr.P.C. had been submitted
according to which investigating agency had found that
accused was not present at the scene of the crime at
relevant time and that he had arrived at the spot after the
main incident was already over, he was admitted to bail.
72. Ghulam Rasool

Versus
State
2007 P Cr L J 1751
S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), SS.302, 324, 148
& 149---Bail, refusal of---Case of one deceased and
one injured, who had received fire-arm injuries on the
vital part of her body, which injuries were attributed to
accused---Injured person supporting the prosecution
case had made statement against accused--Contention of accused that he had been declared
innocent, was totally wrong---Counsel for accused had
himself produced copy of challan/report under section
173, Cr.P.C. wherein name of accused had been
placed in Column No.3, while his co-accused had been
placed in Column No.2 being proclaimed offenders
and had been shown in red ink---No merit having been
found in the petition, same was dismissed.
73. Mst. Aysha

Versus
2007 MLD 1818
State
Facts and circumstances of the case and the

evidence collected by the police showed that
offences under
underSS.371-A
SS.371-A
& 371-B,
& 371-B,
P.P.C.P.P.C.
were
were made
made
out, out,
which
which
were
were
cognizable
cognizableand
and fell
within the prohibitory clause of
of S.497
S.497 Cr.P.C--Cr.P.C--If one offence was cognizable, the police
could register the case under the said
offence, while including the non-cognizable
offences as well---Contention of the counsel
for the petitioners that at the most offence
under S.496-B, P.P.C.
P.P.C. was
was made
made out and the
case could not be registered, was repelled.
74. Muhammad Iqbal Versus

2007 MLD 995
State
Additional Sessions Judge by issuing the said

direction had transgressed his jurisdiction, as it
was not open to him to have directed the
challan to be submitted under a particular
provision of law---If the requisite penal
provision was not invoked by the police or the
investigation was not conducted on proper
lines, Additional Sessions Judge could have
asked Investigating Officer to reinvestigate the
case and submit his report under S.173,
Cr.P.C.
75.
Muhammad Daiem Shattari

Versus State
2007 YLR 2038
Karachi -High-Court-Sindh
Judicial Officer (Magistrate) had not independently

acted and had failed to exercise his discretion in a
lawful manner---Observation of Judicial Officer while
disposing of a case, must be self-explanatory, it must
contain reasons justifying his conclusion---Disposal of
case in slipshod manner, simply stating that he had
gone through the entire record and found that no
such incident had happened, was not sufficient; he
must give cogent reason after discussing material
brought before him and the circumstances which came
to his knowledge during course of trial to reach such
conclusion---No doubt order of cancellation of F.I.R.
under S.173, Cr.P.C., was administrative order, but
even then while exercising his jurisdiction under
said section, concerned Judicial Officer was
required to express himself giving impression that
while doing so he was performing function as a
court.
76. Peer Ghulam Dastagir Versus

2007 YLR 930
State
Investigating Officer during the course of

investigation disbelieved the version of
complainant and disposed of the case in Bclass, but proceedings were initiated on the
basis of the challan submitted on the direction
of Magistrate, which was the abuse of the
process of Court---Impugned order being
beyond the scope of S.173, Cr.P.C., was set
aside and further proceedings on the basis of
said challan were also quashed.
77. Zahoor Ahmed Sheikh

Versus
Chairman, National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad.
2007 PLD 243
SS.169, 170 & 173---Administration of criminal Justice--Crux of provisions of SS.169, 170 & 173, Cr.P.C. is
that whatever the course Investigating Officer adopts
i.e. whether he acts under S.169 or under S.170,
Cr.P.C., it is incumbent upon him to submit a final
report under S.173, Cr.P.C., with regard to the result
of his investigation to a competent Magistrate and the
said Magistrate, shall thereafter, take action as he may
consider proper under S.173, Cr.P.C. or under S.190,
Cr.P.C. as the case may be ---Principles.
78.
Zahoor Ahmed Sheikh

Versus
2007 PLD 243
SS.18 &17---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), SS.169,

170 & 173Filing of Reference before Accountability Court
by the Chairman National Accountability Bureau---Mode and
procedure---Applicability of SS.169, 170 & 173, Cr.P.C.--Scope and extent---Provisions of SS.169, 170 & 173 Cr.P.C.
being not inconsistent with any of the provisions of National
Accountability Ordinance, 1999, are applicable to
proceedings under National Accountability Ordinance, 1999
but with necessary adaptations and changes as detailed by
High Court---Direction of the law is that the accused should
be forwarded to custody at the time of filing of reference if
the Chairman National Accountability Bureau or any officer
of the Bureau duly authorized violates such direction then he
is exposing himself to the provisions of S.166 P.P.C. which
provide that disobedience of direction of law is an offence;
furthermore cases should be disposed of expeditiously
within a period of 30-days---Principles.
79.
Zahoor Ahmed Sheikh

Versus
2007 PLD 243
SS.17, 18 & 24---Criminal Procedure Code (V of

1898),
SS.169,
170
&
173---Reference
to
Accountability Court by the Chairman National
Accountability
Bureau---Procedure---Chairman
National Accountability Bureau is required to forward
the accused in custody to the Accountability Court at
the time of filing reference or if the accused is released
under S.169, Cr.P.C. or absconded then such facts
should also be mentioned in the Reference so that the
Accountability Court my exercise powers provided
under S.173(3), Cr.P.C.---High Court observed that the
References that have already been filed in which the
accused persons have not been forwarded in custody
or shown released or absconded at the time of filing
Reference, the Trial Court shall take appropriate steps
to procure their attendance as per law.
80. Col. Shah Sadiq

Versus
Muhammad Ashiq
2006 SCMR 276
Supreme-Court
If, Prima facie, an offence had been committed, ordinary course

of trial before the Court should not be allowed to be deflected
by resorting to constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---High
Court had no jurisdiction to quash F.I.R by appreciation of
documents produced by the parties without providing
chance to cross-examine or confronting the documents in
question---High Court would err in law to short circuit the
normal procedure of law as provided under Criminal Procedure
Code, 1898---party seeking the quashing of F.I.R had
alternative remedy to raise objection at the time of framing
the charge against them by the Trial Court or at the time of final
disposal of the trial after recording the evidence---said party
had more than one alternative remedies before the Trial Court
under SS. 265-K & 249-A, Cr.P.C or to approach the concerned
Magistrate for cancellation of the case under the provisions of
Cr.P.C---Alternative remedies available to the party enlisted--Principles.
81. Syed Muhammad Ahmed

Versus State
2006 PLD 316
Supreme-Court
High Court had directed that the petitioners before it in the constitutional
petition who were accused persons in an F.I.R., would not be treated as
accused and would not be challaned in the case, only because the
Investigating Officer had informed the High Court that the involvement of the
said accused persons in the case could not he established and that they had
not forged any document or offered any kind of inducement to the
complainant to secure any pecuniary benefit---Investigation according to S.
4(1), Cr.P.C only meant collection of evidence and no more---Determination
of guilt or innocence of the accused persons was an obligation cast on the
Courts of law which task could never be permitted to be delegated to the
police officers investigating a case---Provisions of S. 63, Cr.P.C. had
prohibited discharge of an accused person except under a special order of a
Magistrate---Rule 24.7 of the Police Rules, 1934, had also prohibited
cancellation of F.I.Rs without the orders of the Magistrate---Provisions of
S.173, Cr.P.C. had provided only that after the available material had been
collected by the S.H.O. during investigation, result of the same had to be
reported to the Magistrate competent to take cognizance under S. 190,
Cr.P.C. and thereafter the Magistrate was to decide whether the accused did
or did not deserve to be tried---Impugned order passed by High Court
only on the alleged opinion of the Investigation Officer, therefore, was
not sustainable and the same was set aside by converting the petition for
leave to appeal into appeal which was allowed---S.H.O. was directed to
proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
82.
Hidayatullah and others

Versus
The State through Advocate-General, N.W.F.P.
Peshawar High Court, Peshawar
2006 SCMR 1920
Supreme-Court
SS. 419, 420,468 & 471- Prevention of Corruption Act (II

of 1947), S. 5(2)---Criminal procedure Code (V of 1898),
SS. 63,195(1)(c), 435, 439 & 561-A---Constitution of
Pakistan (1973), Art, 185 (3)---Inherent jurisdiction of High
Court, exercise of---Discharge of accused---Exercise of
discretion by Magistrate---Principles---Accused were
discharged by Magistrate under S. 63 Cr.P.C. on the
ground that alleged forged document was also subjectmatter of civil suit pending before civil court and no
complaint was filed by the court concerned---Order
passed by Magistrate was maintained by Lower Appellate
Court but High Court in exercise of Powers under S.561A, Cr.P.C. set aside the discharge order---Validity--Magistrate concerned had discretion to pass order under
S. 63 Cr.P.C. to discharge accused persons---
Such discretion must be exercised by the concerned Magistrate justly

and fairly; in case discharge order was passed by Magistrate
mechanically without application of his independent mind to the facts of
case, blindfolded acceptance of a recommendation of police in that
regard, perversity of reasoning and adoption of a procedure which
offended against letter and spirit of law, relating to discharge, then High
Court had ample jurisdiction to interfere and set aside such order under
S. 561-A, Cr.P.C.---Magistrate while concurring with a police report
submitted under S.173, Cr.P.C. did not act as criminal Court
subordinate to the Court of Session and High Court---Such order of
Magistrate could not be set aside, revised or modified under the
provisions of SS.435 and 439, Cr.P.C. but it was amenable to
inherent jurisdiction of High Court under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. provided
the order amounted to abuse of process of Court---Magistrate could
effectively grant release to a person who was arrested or detained
without sufficient cause---High Court was vested with authority under
S.561-A. Cr.P.C. to exercise such power to secure ends of justice,
suppress patent mischief if non-interference with the order would
perpetuate injustice, in case the Magistrate concerned had passed the
order without judicial application of mind---Supreme Court did not find
any infirmity or illegality in the Judgment passed by High Court---Leave
to appeal was refused.
83. Israruddin
Versus
2006 MLD 143
State
Peshawar-High-Court-NWFP
Challan of case, though was

completed and signed after four days
of occurrence, but was not put in
Court---Mere signing of complete
Challan Form was not observance of
provisions of S. 173, Cr.P.C. as
regarded submission of interim or
complete challan.
84.
Muhammad Akbar Versus
Muhammad Akhtar
2006 YLR 3123

Injury on person of injured had been declared as

falling within the purview of S. 336, P.P.C. only on
the basis of damages of one nerve and not due to
the loss of Salahiat of ear---Whether S. 336, P.P.C.
was made out or not, was the question of further
inquiry---Other injury attributed to respondent/
accused fell within purview of S. 337-F(iii), P.P.C.
which was punishable
with three years
imprisonment.
Application for cancellation of bail, having no merit,
was dismissed.
85.
Nazar Hussain
Versus
2006 YLR 631
State
Opinion of police and medical report--Evidentiary

value---Petitioner
had
contended that he was found innocent by
Investigating Agency and that per the
post-mortem
examination
report,
deceased/daughter of complainant met
natural death suddenly and that she was
not subjected to any violence by the
petitioner.
That Magistrate, while passing impugned order, neither had

applied mind consciously nor properly appreciated
discharge report which fully supported the case of petitioner;
and that no useful purpose would be served by
directing police for submission of challan as despite
hectic efforts Investigating Agency had failed to collect
evidence connecting petitioner with commission of
alleged murder of deceased---Validity---Police opinion was
not binding on the Court and medical repot could also not be
considered as conclusive piece of evidence without
recording as well as other prosecution evidence---Since
prosecution witnesses in their statements under S. 161,
Cr.P.C. had involved petitioner and medical evidence
was also yet to be scanned after recording statement of
doctor who conducted post-mortem examination of
deceased, it could not, in circumstances, be held that
Magistrate, while passing impugned order, had committed
any illegality or irregularity by disagreeing with the discharge
report and directing Police to submit challan in terms of S.
173, Cr.P.C, even otherwise, High Court, while sitting in
constitutional jurisdiction, seldom interfered in such-like
cases.
86.
Muhammad Younis
Versus
2006 P CR L J 994
State
S.489-F---Quashing of proceedings---Challan in the case

was submitted against al the persons named in the F.I.R.--Two accused persons/Petitioners moved application for their
discharge, but the Trial Court refused to discharge them
despite the fact; that in report under S. 173, Cr.P.C., both
petitioners were placed in column No.2 with the remarks
that they were innocent---Complainant had specifically
alleged that cheque in question was issued by person other
than the petitioners---High Court, on petition under S. 561A, Cr.P.C., had come to the conclusion that case against
petitioners could not proceed on the basis of record and
directed the Trial Court not to proceed against them with
direction that case against petitioners would be regarded
having been cancelled.
87.
Abdur Rehman Versus

State
2006 P CR L J 507
Trial Court under the law was

competent to summon the accused
placed in column No.2 of the
challan to face the trial and even to
take cognizance of an offence in
case of negative report submitted
by the police showing the
accusation to be baseless.
88.
Gahna Khan
Versus
State
2006 MLD 1492
Whenever a matter would come to the court for
taking cognizance, the Court would take
cognizance of the whole of the matter and not
only against accused sent for trial---If Trial Court
was satisfied about the involvement of petitioner,
then it was within cognizance/jurisdiction of the
Trial Court to summon him as well to face trial
irrespective of the fact that he was not shown as
accused in the report under S. 173,Cr.P.C.
Direction of trial court to the Agency for
submission of a supplementary challan against
petitioner and his co-accused, was not
justifiable.
If the Trial Court was satisfied that

sufficient material was on record to
proceed against, petitioner, trial court,
after taking cognizance of the matter upon
the report already submitted by Agency,
could summon petitioner to face trial.
Impugned order to the extent of direction
to the Authority for submission of
supplementary report against petitioner,
was set aside, with that modification in the
impugned order, constitutional petition was
disposed of.
89. Hakim Ali, SIP Versus

2006 PLD 302
State
Contention of applicants was that Magistrate could not deal

with any police report under S. 173 or S. 174, Cr.P.C. either
accepting or refusing same in a Sessions case.
Further contention of applicants was that such report was to
be forwarded to concerned Sessions Judge for disposal
according to law.
Submission of respondents on the other hand was that
wording of S.190(2), Cr.P.C. had made it very clear that
Magistrate was fully empowered to deal with police reports
and thereafter either accept or reject them.
Magistrate should send case to the Sessions court if it was a
Sessions case upon acceptance of police report and again
discharge accused if he did not agree with the same--Exercise to be conducted by the Magistrate under S. 190,
Cr.P.C., was not a judicial one and he could not determine
the guilt or innocence of accused, but only had to assess
evidence on record in a summary fashion and thereafter
make up his mind whether or not to discharge accused.
90.
Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Versus

2006 P CR L J 518
State
Even on unjustified reports submitted by the

Investigating Officers, Magistrates are not
expected to disagree with them by a nonspeaking order without any indication about
considering the material collected during
investigation---Power conferred upon the
Magistrate although is administrative in nature
and the order passed by him is also an
administrative order, yet the same has to be just
and judicious and not an arbitrary order.
91.
Dawood Khan Versus Ahsan-Ur-Rehman

2006 MLD 663
If the Investigating Officer was found not to have

properly investigated the matter and to have
submitted the report under the influence of
accused, Magistrate could disagree with the
same, but his such order of disagreement
should have reflected reasons therefore.
Impugned order passed by the Magistrate
whereby he had called the parties, accused,
complainant and his witnesses, amounted to
taking cognizance of the mater without assigning
any reason for disagreeing with the report of the
Investigating officer.

Role of Prosecutors 0

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Role of Prosecutors 0

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Role of Prosecutors

A police report under section 173 of the

1. Abdul Hafeez Junejo Versus The State

2. Tanveer Hussain Qureshi and 8 others

3. Rasoolan Bibi Versus Additional Session Judge and others

4. Lal Khan and another

Under S.9 of Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution,

5. Allah Yar Versus Hussain Ali and another

6. Tariq Habib Versus The State

7. Bahar Ali and 2 others Versus The State and another

S.8(2) of the North-West Frontier Province Prosecution Service

8. Muhammad Ashraf alias Bhuller Versus The State

9. Fayyaz Ahmed and another Versus The State and others

10. Muhammad Ramzan Versus Station House Officer

Even after the completion of the investigation

11. Javed Iqbal Versus

LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

Conduct and manner of investigation was

Syed Faraz Shah

LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE

Sabir Ali Arian Versus

KARACHI HIGH COURT, SINDH

S.173---Magistrate disagreeing with the police report

2011 MLD 766.

Proceedings under S.173, Cr.P.C. are of

Syed Wahid Bux Shah alias Chacho Shah

16. Noor Muhammad Khan

Asad Zaman Versus

Investigating Officer had the sole prerogative to

18. Mian Muhammad Asif

Report under S.173, Cr.P.C was not signed by the S.H.O

19. Jahangir Versus State

Police report under S. 173, Cr.P.C.,

Muhammad Farooq Qureshi

Muhammad Farooq Qureshi

Magistrate was not supposed to direct arrest of accused

22. Lal Khan

Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali Jhang

In case the Investigator would fail to collect sufficient

After submission of challan in the court, the prosecutor

23. Ch. Khalid Mushtaq Versus Special Judge (Admn.)

Direction of Court to police to submit challan under a

Submission of final report of investigation by

Imran Versus Liaquat Ali

Filing of final report by Investigation Officer for cancelling

Versus Muhammad Adnan Chaudhry

Report of police officer to be examined judicially

26. Meenhan Khan versus

Rasool Bux Shaikh

28. Haji Muhammad Zakria

Said Magistrate on such complaint would

Investigation in the case was conducted by a person

30. Dr. Muhammad Aslam Khakhi

Where a court decides to pass a sentence of

Strict adherence of the Investigating Agency to

32. Rehan Versus State

Trial should normally commence, if

33. Muhammad Aslam (Amir Aslam)

Accused was in jail for the last over eight months---Not

Shah Nawaz Versus State

S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), SS.

SS. 156,173 , 170 & 169-Police Order (22 of 2002),

Hafiz Muhammad Iqbal

Lahore High Court, Lahore