SUPREME COURT ON BAIL

SUPREME COURT ON BAIL
-Ss. 426(1) & 497---Suspension of sentence and grant of bail ---Principles---Provisions under S.426(1), Cr.P.C. are analogous to the one contained in S.497, Cr.P.C.; in both the cases the sentence
2010 SCMR 580
Cancellation of bail ---Principles---Considerations for cancellation of bail are different from those for grant of bail ---bail can be cancelled, if the order on the face of it is perverse, patently
2010 SCMR 576

Cancellation of bail granted on medical ground---Principles---Grant of bail to an accused on medical ground is not a State bounty in perpetuity, which once granted cannot be withdrawn
2010 SCMR 1989
Special provision---Scope---When law makers have provided some special provision in statute to bar the jurisdiction of Special Court established under such enactment, due weight is to be given to such
2009 SCMR 1488

bail ---Principles---Courts in cases, where offence falls within non-prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C., consider favourably by granting bail as a rule but decline to do so in
2009 SCMR 1210
bail ---Further inquiry---Where evidence on record is °vague and sketchy and prosecution version leaves much to be inquired into, the bail can be granted by pressing into service the concept of
2009 SCMR 1202
-Cancellation of bail ---Principle---Considerations for cancellation of bail are quite distinct from the considerations for grant of bail ---Strong and exceptional grounds are required for cancelling
2009 PLD 58 SC
bail ---Counter-versions---Further inquiry---Cases of counter-versions arising from the same incident, one given by the complainant in F.I.R. and the other given by the opposite party, are covered for
2009 SCMR 834
Forfeiture of surety bond---General rule---Courts while forfeiting bail bond amount should not show any undue leniency and their approach should be dynamic and progressive-oriented with the desire to
2009 SCMR 734
-bail ---Trial belated---bail cannot be claimed as a matter of right in a criminal offence merely for the reason that trial has not proceeded, particularly when the facts and circumstances of the case
2009 PLD 749 SC
bail petitions etc., filing of---Instructions to avoid delay in disposal of urgent cases---In view of the difficulties of the accused persons confined in custody, it was ordered on administration side
2009 PLD 427 SC
bail before arrest, grant of---Framework within which and the guidelines according to which, the jurisdiction vesting in the High Courts and Courts of Session is to be exercised summarized.
2009 PLD 427 SC
bail before arrest, grant of---Framework within which and the guidelines according to which, the jurisdiction vesting in the High Courts and Courts of Session is to be exercised summarized.

2008 SCMR 807
bail does not mean acquittal of accused but only change of custody from Government agencies to the sureties, who on furnishing bonds take responsibility to produce the accused whenever and wherever he
2008 SCMR 173
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---bail , grant of---Rule of consistency---Co-accused in the case had already been admitted to bail ---Accused were also allowed bail in view of the rule of
2008 SCMR 1489
S. 526---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/148/149/109---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.l85(3)---Transfer of case---Grant of bail to one accused by the Trial Court by itself was not a valid
2008 SCMR 1316
S. 497---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---bail , grant of----Petitioner had called in question order passed by High Court whereby his petition for grant of bail was dismissed---No
2008 SCMR 980
S. 497---Pre-arrest bail , grant of---Object---Pre-arrest bail may be granted when a case is based on enmity, mala fide, registered for ulterior motive, or where no offence is shown to have been
2007 SCMR 843
Ss. 497(1) & 498---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419/420/468/471/109---Pre-¬arrest bail , confirmation of---No direct evidence was available with
2007 SCMR 575
-S. 514---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324, 395, 148 & 149---Forfeiture of bail bond---Reduction in amount of surety---Accused persons for whom petitioners stood surety having absented
2007 SCMR 482
--S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302---bail , cancellation of---Principles---Jurisdiction of Supreme Court---Scope---Supreme Court, ordinarily does not interfere with the order of High Court
2007 PLD 564 SC

2008 SCMR 807
bail does not mean acquittal of accused but only change of custody from Government agencies to the sureties, who on furnishing bonds take responsibility to produce the accused whenever and wherever he
2008 SCMR 173
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---bail , grant of---Rule of consistency---Co-accused in the case had already been admitted to bail ---Accused were also allowed bail in view of the rule of
2008 SCMR 1489
S. 526---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302/324/148/149/109---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.l85(3)---Transfer of case---Grant of bail to one accused by the Trial Court by itself was not a valid
2008 SCMR 1316
S. 497---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---bail , grant of----Petitioner had called in question order passed by High Court whereby his petition for grant of bail was dismissed---No
2008 SCMR 980
S. 497---Pre-arrest bail , grant of---Object---Pre-arrest bail may be granted when a case is based on enmity, mala fide, registered for ulterior motive, or where no offence is shown to have been
2007 SCMR 843
Ss. 497(1) & 498---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419/420/468/471/109---Pre-¬arrest bail , confirmation of---No direct evidence was available with
2007 SCMR 575
-S. 514---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324, 395, 148 & 149---Forfeiture of bail bond---Reduction in amount of surety---Accused persons for whom petitioners stood surety having absented
2007 SCMR 482
--S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302---bail , cancellation of---Principles---Jurisdiction of Supreme Court---Scope---Supreme Court, ordinarily does not interfere with the order of High Court
2007 PLD 564 SC
-Ss. 426(1) & 497---Suspension of sentence and grant of bail ---Principles---Provisions under S.426(1), Cr.P.C. are analogous to the one contained in S.497, Cr.P.C.; in both the cases the sentence
2007 PLD 255 SC
--Art. 185(2)---Criminal appeal---Maintainability---Principle that fugitive from justice loses right of hearing appeal filed on his behalf through a counsel---Scope---Only basis of such principle is
2007 SCMR 1607
S. 498---bail before arrest, grant of---Principles. bail before arrest can be granted when the arrest of accused is eminent, with ulterior motive, mala fide or is due to false implication apparent on
2006 SCMR 1292
-S. 497(5)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.302, 324, 129, 120-B & 34---bail , cancellation of---Conspiracy---Abetment---Amalgamating the act of "abetment" with "conspiracy" for commission of offence
2006 SCMR 1265
--S. 497---bail ---Where the charge had been framed, High Court may have directed for completion of trial by adopting certain modalities.
Court is empowered to cancel the bail if the order
2006 SCMR 1225
-Ss. 426, 496 & 497---Power conferred under S.426, Cr.P.C. is not controlled by the provisions of Ss.496 and 497, Cr.P.C., but the principles enunciated therein can be taken into consideration
2005 SCMR 1291
-Art. 199---National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), S.9(b)---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution---Scope---bail , grant of-High Court can always grant
2005 PLD 364 SC
-S. 497(1)(5)---bail on medical ground, grant of---Criteria---Right of prosecution to seek cancellation of bailafter improvement of health of accused---Principles stated.

2005 SCMR 1524
-Ss. 306(c) & 308---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Reappraisal of evidence---Dead body of deceased was recovered from house of accused where deceased was living with him as his wife
2004 SCMR 1167
-S. 498---Pre-arrest bail ---Direct approach to High Court---Practice and procedure---Normally a person against whom a case has been registered, may approach in the first instance the original Court i.
2002 SCMR 442
Ss. 497 & 498---bail in non-bail able offences---None can claim bail as of right in non-bail able offences even though the same do not fall under the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr.P.C.
2002 SCMR 282
bail ---- bail cannot be withheld as punishment on accusation of non-bail able offences against an accused

2002 SCMR 184
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----Ss. 497/498---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted by the Supreme Court to consider whether after withdrawal of first bail
2002 PLD 1 SC
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----Ss. 497 & 498---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 184(3)---bail ---Suo motu criminal review under Art. 184(3) of the Constitution by the Supreme Court---
2000 SCMR 48
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) S. 497---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3) grant or refusal of bail---Cancellation of bail ---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to examine
2000 SCMR 1854
Principle of vicarious liability---Applicability---Accused persons had only 'Sotis' with them and did not cause any injury to the deceased---Only simple injuries were caused by accused to victim---
1999 SCMR 338
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) Ss. 497 & 498---bail , gram and cancellation of---Principles---No hard and fast rule can be laid down that bail should not be cancelled merely because the trial has
1999 SCMR 2823
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) S. 497---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---bail , grant of ---Well reasoned discretionary order of High Court granting bail to accused, could not be
1999 SCMR 2148
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)---bail ---Sessions Court had rightly exercised discretion in allowing bail to
1998 SCMR 908
Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984 S. 5(7) Fixation of amount of bail Object Object of fixing the amount of bail in a case is not to penalize the person facing the trial, but
1998 SCMR 496
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S. 497---bail ---Appreciation of evidence---Appreciation of evidence cannot take place at bail stage. -[Evidence]
1998 PLD 97 SC
Pakistan Penal Code ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34---bail , grant of---ilea of alibi---Effect---bail can be granted in a case of capital charge on the plea of alibi if peculiar facts
1998 SCMR 1758
Pakistan Penal Code ----S. 409/420/467/468/471/109---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to
1998 SCMR 1528
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S. 497/498---bail ---Accused can be detained in jail pending investigation or decision provided the dictates of justice and public good so demand---Refusal or grant
1998 PLD 1 SC
bail Concept.---- Relief given by a Court like release of an accused on bail is not procedural--Principles---Grant or refusal of bail does not. bring any progress in trial of an accused facing a
1997 SCMR 1275
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) -----S. 497(1), first proviso---bail on medical ground---Every ailment does no attract invocation of discretion contained in first proviso to S. 497(1), Cr.P.C.----
1997 SCMR 1234
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) S. 498---Pre-arrest bail ---Principle---Arrest for ulterior motives such as humiliation and unjustified harassment is a valid consideration for .grant of pre-arrest
1997 SCMR 361
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S. 497 (1), fourth proviso---Refusal of bail ---bail can be refused to an accused under the fourth proviso to S. 497 (1), Cr.P.C. despite the fact that his trial
1997 PLD 545 SC
Pakistan Penal Code ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.161, 120, 120-B, 223, 224, 225, 427, 457, 166, 34 & 109---Prevention of Corruption Act (I1 of 1947), S.5(2)--bail , refusal to grant---
1997 SCMR 1829
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S. 497/498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302/34---bail ---Plea of alibi--Plea of alibi raised in a bail matter may not be outrightly rejected and can be gone into
1997 SCMR 1361
Constitution of Pakistan 1973 ----Art. 184(3)---Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984), S.4---bail ---Constitutional petitions had been directly filed under Art.184(3) of

Like

comlete law citation

Correction of entries in revenue record. Civil court has no jurisdiction, Suit Dismissed.
2015 Y.L.R P-53

Mere abscondence is no ground for dismissal of bail.
2009 S.C.M.R P-299
P.Cr.L.J 2012 P-625
P.L.D 2012 S.C P-222
S.C.M.R 2012 P-1273
S.C.M.R 2012 P-1137

Acknowledgement of paternity. Child even if illegitimate by birth become legitimate by force of acknowledgement of paternity.
P.L.D 1973 Baghdad Ul Jadid P-48
P.L.D 1976 S.C P-767
P.L.D 1980 S.C P-228
P.L.D 1988 S.C P-8

Notice of Talaq To chairman is not mandatory, after obtaining Talaq(Divorce) from husband and expiry of Iddat period, marriage with an other person is not invalid.
S.C.M.R 1992 P-1273 ( Shariat Bench)

When a tenant challenged the ownership of the landlord, the tenant first eject and then proceed in accordance with law.
2016 Y.L.R P-274
2016 P.L.D Lah P-123
2014 P.L.D S.C P-347
2013 M.L.D P-1648
2012 M.L.D P-108
2012 Y.L.R P-1464
2011 C.L.C P-961
2009 P.L.D S.C P-546
2006 S.C.M.R P-1068 & 946
2005 C.L.C P-1758
2002 M.L.D P-384
1981 S.C.M.R P-1064
1978 S.C.M.R P-14

It is mandatory duty of Station Police Officer (SHO) to register case under section 154 Cr.p.c.
1993 SCMR 550
Pre-arrest bail is not necessary in private complaint. Court can order to submit bails bond.
2014 S.C.M.R P-1762

30 August ·

Ss. 22-A, 22-B, 173 & 540---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Reinvestigation---Ex-officio Justice of Peace, jurisdiction of---FIR was registered and investigation was conducted on the complaint of petitioner---Petitioner was not satisfied with the investigation, preferred an application before Ex-officio Justice of Peace for direction to reinvestigate the matter---Ex-officio Justice of Peace dismissed the application---Validity---Door of investigation could never close on submission of police report before court and it remained open for discovery of true facts even during course of trial---Petitioner approached wrong forum, who instead of applying to Trial Court for the purpose, approached Ex-officio Justice of Peace---Petitioner should have approached the Trial Court to get examined crime weapon with recovered empties and for production of witnesses who were not associated with the investigation---Sufficient powers were available to Trial Court under the purview of S. 540, Cr.P.C.---Petitioner having failed to avail remedy provided by law, High Court declined to interfere in the matter as no illegality or irregularity was pointed out---Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2016 PCrLJ 76

Hearing of arguments before disposing a case is not necessary for court .
2010 SCMR 1119.

Mst. Gulshan Bibi etc & others Vs Muhammad Sadiq & others.
C.P No 41 of 2008 and C.A.No 2054 of 2007&1208 of 2015.
Larger Bench of Supreme Court of Pakistan conclusively held that scope and application of Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 is not limited to Land Mafia and Qabza group only. Anyone found committing the offence described in S. 3 of act would be liable to prosecution under the provisions of the said act and no past record of the accused needs to be gone into by the Court. Judgements of Mr. Justice Asif Saeed Khosa PLD 2007 LAH 231 & PLD 2010 SC 661 and another earlier judgement of Supreme Court 2012 SCMR 1533, restricting the scope and application of act were over ruled while 2009 SCMR 1066, 2012 SCMR 1254 & PLD 2010 SC 725 were approved

اگر مالک.جایداد دو مختلف افراد سے اپنی جایداد کی فروختگی کا معاھدا کر لیتا ھے تو مالک جایداد کے خلاف فراڈ کی بنا پر ایف أی أر بھی درج ھوسکتی ھے نیز مالک کے خلاف دیوانی مقدمہ میں دونوں خریدار فریق مقدمہ ھونگے اور اگر دونوں خریداروں کا معاھدا ثابت ھوتا ھے تو پہھلا خریدار جایداد لینے کا حقدار ھوگا.
ملاحظہ ھو.
P.L.D 2009 kar 382.. 2013 S.C.M.R 1600

Co sharer would be considered to be in possession of each and every inch of un-partitioned land according to his share.
2016 S.C.M.R P-910
2007 S.C.M.R P-1884
2005 S.C.M.R P-1335
1998 S.C.M.R P-1589
1994 P.L.D S.C P-336
1992 S.C.M.R P-138
1989 S.C.M.R P-130

Section.115..CPC ..ARTICLE 79..Q.S.O.1984.Revisional jurisdiction....
Power of High Court to set-aside illegal findings of court below rather then remanding the case
SCMR.2016.986

2009 SCMR 141
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.
Amendment in written statement can be accepted even after a long period on controverted question.
P.L.D 1992 S.C P-180
Non-applicability of 311 PPC in Case of Compromise under 345 CrPC:
In this case, after conclusion of compromise under 345 CrPC between the complainant and the convicts for an offence under 302(b), the High Court pronounced the punishment of the convicts under 311 PPC instead of acquitting them. The court was of the view that the present case was of the nature which fell within the definition of fasad-fil-arz, because the accused persons acted in a brutal manner and the crime committed was outrageous to public conscious, therefore, the convicts could not go without any punishment. It was argued before the Supreme Court that once a compromise has been arrived between the parties under 345 CrPC, then the court would have left with no option except to exanorate the convicts of the charge and the provision of 311 PPC could not be resorted to for punishing them. The court held that 311 PPC was attracted in cases punishable with 'Qisas' exclusively and not in cases punishable under 302(b) as 'Tazir'. And when a compromise was concluded in an offence punishable as 'Tazir', the High Court was not justified in law to convert the punishment of the convicts to 311 PPC instead of acquitting them. Thus the High Court had committed a legal error in sentencing the convicts under 311 PPC and consequently, the appeal was allowed for acquitting them.
Iqrar Hussain v State (2014 SCMR 1155)

Now, order under section 22A and 22B of Cr.P.C. is a judicial order according to the latest view by supreme court..
--
PLD 2016 SC 581

All sentences must be run concurrently.
S.C.M.R 2001 P-84
S.C.M.R 1986 P-1573
P.Cr.L.J 1997 P-118

Last possession of vehicle is solid ground for superdari.
2004 PLD Peshawar 91,
2001pcrlj428,
2005 scmr 735.
Report of local commission cannot be challenged when it was appointed with consent of the parties.
2009 SCMR 594
A divorced lady is entitled to get her share in estate of her husband if husband died during iddat period.
PLD 1974 SC 22
1998 SCMR 181
Denial of relationship as tenant and landlord. .....
requirements
CLC(Notes)2016 Lah 48

Dissolution of Marriage Before Consummation:
If 'Rukhsati' has not taken place then there is no obligation on wife to observe 'iddat' and she is free to marry immediately. The same principle has been provided in Section 275 of Muhammadan Law by Sir Dinshah Fardunji Mulla.
It follows that there was no obligation on the husband to maintain wife in such situation as such she is not entitled to any maintenance as well even for 'iddat' period.
(PLD 2014 Peshawar 226)
S. 342---Evidence---Conviction and sentence---Scope---Piece of evidence not put to an accused during his/her examination under S.342, Cr.P.C., could not be used against him/her for maintaining conviction and sentence.
2016 SCMR P-267 SUPREME COURT

Paternal Grandfather is bound to maintain grandchildren if Judgment debtor/ father avoided to do so.
PLD 2012 Lahore 148
ﺍﮔﺮ 90 ﺩﻧﻮﮞ ﮐﮯ ﺍﻧﺪﺭ ﺍﻧﺪﺭ ﺍﭘﯿﻞ ﮐﺎ ﻓﯿﺼﻠﮧ ﻧﮩﯿﮟ ﮐﯿﺎ ﺟﺎﺗﺎ ، ﺗﻮ ﺟﺎﺭﯼ ﮨﻮﻧﮯ ﻭﺍﻻ ﺣﮑﻢ ﺍﻣﺘﻨﺎﻋﯽ ﻓﺎﺭﻍ ﺗﺼﻮﺭ ﮐﯿﺎﺟﺎﺋﮯ ﮔﺎ ﺍﻭﺭ ﻣﻼﺯﻡ ﺑﺤﺎﻝ ۔۔۔
‏-2012 PLC - 299
Malik Manzoor Hussain Vs. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal (Lahore
Cheque as security:
S.489-F-PPC, cheque issued as a security recovery of amount could not be effected in criminal proceedings, Before arrest bail confirmed.
2016 P.Cr.LJ P-769 Lhr
Recovery is only corroborative piece of evidence..
"Absence of recovery is not material to disbelieve prosecution case where prosecution otherwise has proved its case"
2016 PCr.LJ Sindh.

An accused of sec. 430 PPC cannot be challenged u/s 379 PPC as 379 PPC is not applicable in a case of canal diminution of water.
(S. 430, 379 PPC / PLD 1997 Lah. 689

Case of prima facie there is only recovery of stolen goods from the petitioner and as Case does not fall under prohibitory clause. Bail allowed.
(S. 419, 420, 411 PPC / PLJ 2000 Pesh. 1028)

Bail granted on compromise in non- compoundable offence.
(S. 365/34 PPC / 2009 SCMR 448) (S.457, 380 PPC / PLJ 2000 Cr.c Pesh. 401)

Civil suit is pending before civil court. Bail granted.
(Ss. 468, 471, 420 PPC)
2007 SCMR 1546
2005 YLR 475
2008 YLR 778
2008 YLR 732
2008 YLR 2953

Two kinds of abscondence
(I) in which destroy prosecution evidence
(ii) abscondence to save himself from harassment of police, no evidence of destruction of evidence. Bail Allowed. (u/s 324, 430, 425, 34 PPC)
PLD 2007 (Kar)127
2009 YLR 816

Complainant initially had nominated the accused in FIR but later on through an affidavit he had expressed has satisfied with regard to the innocence of accused and did not want to proceed with matter. Further inquiry. Bail allowed. (u/s 365/34 PPC)
2009 SCMR 448

Not nominated in the FIR no featured description in FIR only recovery of stolen car from the possession of the petitioner does not make the petitioner on accused of theft.
(S. 381 A PPC / 209 YLR 106 Kar.)

Plea not raised in written statement
Effect."If plea not raised in written statement , could not be allowed to be raised subsequently"
ORDER.VIII. RULE.2.C.P.C.
Plea not raised in written statement.
(2016.YLR.PESH.38.)

Relevant Law
Sec.27(b)specific relief act 1877
Sections 41 &53A transfer of property act 1882
Section 48 registration act 1908
Relevant Case Laws...
1980 CLC 1450...
PLD 2011 SC 296....
2014 MLD 677...
2010 SCMR 18....
PLD 1976 SCMR 489...
2003 CLC 138...
2012 SCMR 84...
PLD 2003 SC 494...
PLD 2004 SC 465.....
2010 SCMR 18....
PLD 2011 SC 296....
2010 SCMR 988.....
2010 SCMR 988.....
2010 SCMR 988....
2008 SCMR 1201....
2008 SCMR 352...
PLD 1977 SC 25...
2009 SCMR 1091...
AIR 1932 PC 228....
PLD2011 SC 296 ...
2012 SCMR 345 .....
PLD 1974 BJ 25...
PLD 1969 Lah 762...
2003 CLC 1052...
1992 SCMR 652....
AIR 1960 Madh pra.3...

6 September ·

National Identity Card is sufficient unless rebutted by documentary evidence....
2011 SCMR P-837

Any document can be proved through two witnesses, the document shall not be used in evidence without attesting witnesses about its execution.
Art. 79 QSO 1980
2016 SCMR 986
2008 SCMR 1454...
Justice of peace can initiate contempt proceedings
PLD 2016 SC P- 581

Abscondence alone is not sufficient ground for cancellation of bail
2016 SCMR 676

Co-Sharer in Shamlat Deh. Held could not disposes the other without partition.
2015 M.L.D P-145

The case was patently time barred. can be rejected u/o 7 rule 11 without recording of evidence.
2016 S.C.M.R P-910

Bail Granted. 489-F case does not fall within the ambit of prohibitory clause and does not fulfill the fundamental elements.
2013 SCMR P-51,
2014 SCMR P-1032,
2014 CrLJ Cr.C P-66,
2011 SCMR P-1708,
2009 PCrLJ P-1418,
2009 SCMR P-1488
Advocate identifying surety for bail on the basis of National Identity Card. The surety turned out to be a fake person. The Advocate was asked to submit his explanation, by the trial Court. The explanation was not accepted and the Court directed that a complaint be lodged against the Advocate in the concerned Police Station. High Court held that the Advocate had not given personal undertaking that he would be personally liable if surety turns out to be a fake person. The impugned order was held to be an abuse of the process of the Court and quashed.
PLJ 1994 Cr.C. (Kar.) 312


Dying declaration:
Has a degree of sanctity but the case ought to have been considered in all its physical environment. PLD 1970 S.C. 13. Incomplete not admissible. PLD 1949 P.C. 299. All the eye-witnesses present in the hospital. PLD 1970 S.C. 406. Dying declaration can be used as FIR. 1971 SCMR 516 ; 1969 SCMR 85. Dying declaration uncorroborated. PLJ 1977 S.C. 481. Not necessary to have been made under immediate apprehension of death. 1975 SCMR 289. Dying declaration lacking integrity. PLD 1984 S.C. 433. Recorded at Police Station in presence of relative. 1984 SCMR 1094. Deceased not in full control of faculties. PLJ 1980 S.C. 377. After mortal injuries. 1984 SCMR 263; PLJ 1981 S.C. 90. Value. 1994 SCMR 1852; 1994 PSC (Cr.) 717. Corroborated by medical evidence. 1994 MLD 1046. Conviction on. 1994 MLD 1046; 1994 PSC (Cr.) 717. A weak piece of evidence. 1995 PCr.LJ 179. Relevant consideration for determining the evidentiary value of dying declaration are whether the deceased then injured, was capable of making a statement; that whether he did make a statement orally or it was recorded by someone, that whether the statement made by him was corroborated by independent evidence. 2002 PCr.LJ 1798. Imminent apprehension of death not necessary. 2002 PCr.LJ 1798. Dying declaration made soon after the incident or at a time when the deceased expected death deserves great weight and cannot be discarded on the assumption of being the result of consultation. [PLD 2004 S.C. 367]
Dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by I.O., has fully supported the prosecution case. Vital piece of evidence against the appellant was the dying declaration of the deceased which was recorded at the Hospital. Deceased in his statement has provided detail of the motive behind occurrence. No illegality or infirmity has been found in the dying declaration which was recorded by the deceased at hospital under the apprehension of impending death. During the investigation, weapon of offence was recovered at the instance of the appellant and on his pointation from his residential house. PW, ASI in his statement has furnished a credible account of recovery of weapon of offence from the appellant. Although, PW, ASI was a police witness best his testimony cannot be discarded on that ground alone as a police witness is a good witness as any. Testimony furnished by the witness was fully supported by report of Chemical Examiner in which it is stated that chhurri was stained with human blood. Factum of recovery of chhurri from the appellant established at the trial. Ocular account furnished by witnesses has received further corroboration from the medical evidence. PLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Lahore) 996.
43. Empties and crime weapons. Delay simpliciter in dispatching. Not fatal. PLD 1987 Quetta 77; See PLD 1982 S.C. 92; 1982 SCMR 531. No crime weapon recovered from possession of accused at the time of his arrest. Ballistic Expe

Divorce on the basis of Khula would be the one Talaq...Husband and wife can reunion without intervening marriage i.e (HALALA). Even after 10 year and even the Talaq MOUSAR certificate by the union council has been issued....Reliance can be made on the following
2011 CLC 1211..
PLD 2011 Lah 458..
PLD 2003 Pesh, 169.

s

Noor Law Associates

4 September 2015 ·

Release of vehicle 516(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure

1. Bona-fide Purchaser of Motor Car taken in custody by police under S. 550 granted Spurdari on verbal prayer for Spurdari made at time of bearing application under section 497/498.[1]

2. Application and scope- property claimed by an actual owner in respect whereof some offence had been committed could be restored even on personal bond what to say of the surety or security.[2]

3. Registration Book of the car in question was in the name of the petitioner car though allegedly was used for transportation of liquor but the same itself was not such a property as had been described in proviso of section 516-A Cr.PC Car was subject to decay and deterioration.[3]

4. Vehicle Superdari of – Petitioner claiming ownership of the same Held that: As the vehicle was not a stolen property and as it apparently belonged to the petitioner it is directed that the same be handed to him on his furnishing two securities with the undertaking that he would produce before the court when so required.[4]

5. If the police is definite about the title of the truck, we have no hesitation in concluding that it is neither a stolen property not a property used in the commission of offence and hence the application of sections 523/550 Cr.PC is utterly illegal. The recovery being illegal and without jurisdiction, the question arises as to whom the delivery should be given pending the dispute.

6. Riasat Khan claims to be the purchaser of the truck from the aforesaid absconder Muhammad Saleem many months prior to even the commission of the murder attributed to Muhammad Saleem. He has open transfer letter in his possession. Against this evidence there is nothing in rebuttal with the State except the argument that the registration of MR-1696 pertains to a Bus and not Truck with the Motor Registration Authority at Mardan.

7. Last is the stance of the police that the truck in fact belongs to Muhammad Saleem an absconder. Although the SHO was not very clear on the reason that the truck is taken into possession because it belonged to an absconder yet from the conduct of the police it appears to have been taken into custody under such impression. Even if it is kept in custody under such impression and even if the truck still belongs to Muhammad Saleem, the police cannot acquire the possession thereof without obtaining a warrant under section 88 Cr.PC. It is admitted at the bar the; learned AAG as well as the SHO that no such warrant has so far been obtained. The recovery is unlawful on that score as well.
8. As the vehicle No. MR-1696 is not a stolen property and as it apparently belongs to the petitioner Riasat Khan, is directed to be handed over to him on his furnishing a bond in a sum of Rs. 300,000/- with two sureties to the satisfaction of Deputy Registrar of this Court.

9. Without prejudice it can be expressed that the dispute revolves around the ownership of Car No. LHD 6418. The same could not be taken into possession under section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The police has coined a device to settle the dispute of civil nature of the instant category by projecting its authority. The contesting parties can get determined their ownership from the competent court. The police has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute about the ownership of the Car.[5]

10. Consequently, I accept this application and pass the order that the Car along-with the Registration Book shall be returned to Abdul Ghafoor. Altaf Hussain, Sub-Inspector/Station Housing Officer (SHO), Police Station, Mankera, District Bhakkar has handed over the key of the Car and the Registration Book to Abdul Ghafoor petitioner who is satisfied. He has gone out, checked the Car and has back.

11. Name in registration Book owner has better title hence entitled to the possession.[6]

12. Principle of possessor.[7]

13. Provision Section 516-A Cr.PC empowered the court to deliver on superdari to any person during pendency of trial, any property regarding which any offence appeared to have been committed. Property was not necessarily to be given on superdari to person from, whose possession it was recovered.[8]

14. Property was not necessarily to be given on superdari to a person from whose possession it was recovered.
15. Delivery to a person entitled to its possession.

16. Name in Registration Book.[9]

17. Property claimed by original owner regarding which an offence has been committed.[10]

18. Condition was to be further deteriorated if the same was not granted as superdari.[11]

19. Revision in Superdari.[12]

20. Real owner should not be deprived of custody.[13]

21. Subject of decay.[14]

22. Two claimants’ Name in Registration Book.[15]

23. The owner has given the vehicle on rent if any offence got committed on it.[16]

[1] 2005 P Cr.L J 533 ALD 2004 2011.
[2] 2004 YLR 943(a) ALD 2016 2004.
[3] 2004 YLR 3198 ALD 2019.
[4] 1997 PLR 537 Abbotabad.
[5] 2001 MLD 670 Lahore.
[6] 2000 YLR 1241.
[7] 2006 P.Cr.LJ 311.
[8] 2004 MLD 1259(a).
[9] MLD 1596.
[10] 2004 YLR 943 (a).
[11] 2004 YLR L 358.
[12] YLR 324 2003.
[13] 1991 MLD 2590.
[14] 2003 YLR 791.
[15] 2003 YLR 2744.
[16] PLD 2003 Pesh 87 (

Secondary Evidence.

In absence of original document, its certified copy is not admissible in evidence.
Notwithstanding the presumption of correctness being attached with certified copy of a document pertaining to the official record, if the availability or existence of document is disputed and original is not produced, its certified copy would not be admissible in evidence without proving the non-availability of the original.

PLD 2005 SC 418

2012 SCMR 1147
Applicant, a Hindu lady, had applied for obtaining a passport, but she could not get the same, as she was not in possession of a Computerized National Identity Card, which card had not been issued by NADRA because there was no documentary evidence to establish her tie of marriage with her husband--- Police official of the district from which the applicant belonged had stated that present situation had arisen because of a lacuna in the policy issued by NADRA, but with his intervention NADRA authorities had agreed to issue Computerized National Identity Card to the applicant, subject to her furnishing an affidavit---NADRA official had stated that a Regulation was being framed to ensure that the Fundamental rights of the Hindu community were fully protected, for which a Board meeting had been called, but in the meantime standing instructions had been issued to ensure that the members of the Hindu community faced no difficulty in getting Computerized National Identity Cards

If mother not married with other person, the child who born with in a period of two years will belong to first husband.
2015 PLD SC P-32
Family judge has the power to review his own order to some extent.
2016 P.L.D Lah 73
MARRYING AGAIN WITH ANOTHER PERSON DURING LIFE TIME OF FIRST HUSBAND WITHOUT ADOPTING DUE COURSE OF LAW IS SERIOUS OFFENCE
2016 MLD LAH 294
Disinterment of dead body (Kabar Koshai) can be done even after one year.
2016 PCRLJ 756

VERY IMPORTANT JUDGMENT OF ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT
(FAIR TRAIL----BAIL GRANT OF......PREVIOUS CONVICTED)
2015 P Cr.L.J 224 (Islamabad)
“That applicant/accused is entitle for the concession of bail as a right under the Article 10-A of the constitution of Pakistan to get Fair Trail, despite of being previously convicted, if offence dose not fall under the prohibitory clause, Presumption of innocence is a basic pillar of criminal law and every person to be presumed innocent until proved guilty, Presumption of innocence is basis of right to defense of an accused and key to fair trail. Fair trail and due process essentially envisaged being free from bias of every kind and person facing trail in multiple FIRs has independent right to defend himself in each cases even conviction in another case and other cases would not influence/bias court as such bias would deprive accused of his right to fair trail and conviction in other cases would only be relevant for specific purpose of enhancement of punishment under section 75 PPC”

Court had the inherent power to consolidate suits and the purpose behind it was to avoid multiplicity of litigation and to prevent abuse of the process of law and court and to avoid conflicting judgments.
(PLD 2016 SC 409)

fresh law

Acquittal of Civil Servant on the basis of Compromise will not disqualify him...

Civil servant acquitted from murder charge by paying Diyat – Service terminated due to absence being in detention and also the plea that payment of Diyat was equated with conviction – Held – offence was lawfully compromised. Such acquittal of civil servant could not be taken as his disqualification, coming in the way of his reinstatement.

Director General I.B. Vs. Muhammad Javed
2012 SCMR 165

ovember at 22:53 ·

Injunction

Cheque
2014 CLC 1448

No need for specific extension if written statement is not filed
1999 SCMR 2215
NLR 2000 Civil 14

Undertaking on risks and costs 2008 CLC 1481

1981 PCLRJ 1018
1990 CLC 609
2006 CLC 1574
PLD 2002 DC 303

Inheritance

Group insurance, benevolent funds are not tarka
Contra
Contra view 2005 SCMR 512
PLD 2013 PESHAWAR 1

2014 CLC 126
PLD 1991 SC 731
PLD 2010 KAR 512

Presumed to be Sunni unless proved otherwise
Contra 2010 SCMR 1915
PLD 1965 SC 134
PLD 1990 SC 01

Shia law
Share of mother PLD 2008 Karachi 105
Shia Wife 2016 SCMR 1195
2006 SCMR 1916
2012 YLR 713
2014 CLC 945
PLD 2002 SC 677

Guardian

Delay in filing application
1995 CLC 306
PLD 2015 LAH 401

Jurisdiction
PLD 2012 SUPREME COURT 66

Grand mother (Nani)
2011MLD 1814
2011 YLR 348 LAH
2013 MLD 741

Sale of property of minor
PLD 2015 SINDH 46

When both married
1987 CLC 1675

t

Conditional gift of corpus of property valid but condition is invalid
Delivery of possession
Husband to wife
2012 MLD 1545

Un-registered
2004 CLC 1343
PLD 1976 SC 781
PLD 2005 SC 311
PLD 2008 SC 73

Usufructry gift is valid
1982 CLC 2082
2005 SCMR 710
PLD 1970 LAH 502
PLD 1991 SC 466
PLD 1997 SC 730
PLD 1963 (W.P) PESHAWAR 199
PLD 1975 SUPREME COURT 37
PLD 1975 SUPREME COURT 383

2011 SCMR 803
PLD 1969 LAH 338 gift and hiba


Filing of written statement by un-authorized

Fraud
1969 SCMR 299
1993 SCMR 710
2003 SCMR 549
PLD 2002 SC 677

General power of Attorney
1999 SCMR 2594
2003 YLR 2843
2011 CLC 848
PLD 1985 SUPREME COURT 341
PLD 2003 SUPREME COURT 494
PLD 2002 SC 71
PLD 2003 SC 676
PLD 2005 SC 418
PLD 2008 SC 389
PLD 2014 LAH 417
PLD 2003 SC 31
Power of attorney written abroad
Statement by Attorney
P L D 2016 Lahore 140

Filing of suit by un-authorized person

2015 CLC 1418
PLD 1971 SC 550

Fatal Accident Act

2011 SCMR 939

Execution

Attachment of money kept in bank
PLD 1969 SC 301
2016 CLC 1085

Executing court cannot order court fee
2000 YLR 2696

Execution bared remedy not right
2007 MLD 857

Execution of decree in AJK
1986 CLC 1309
PLD 2006 ALK 1

Family
Maintenance after attaining age of majority
PLD 2013 SC 557

Objection petition
2003 SCMR 181

Objection regarding deficient court fee
2000 YLR 2696

Pension
2011 CLC 1040

Section 48 time for execution( Limitation)
After decree filed application under order 9 rule
1998 CLC 690

First Application
2016 CLC 256
2015 CLC 1833
2013 SCMR 05
2013 YLR 226
2012 CLC 1227
PLD 1990 SC 778

First application consigned to record room second
1988 MLD 1379
2015 SCMR 1335
PLD 1968 KAR 10

Merger of decree
Contra, 2013 SCMR 5
1992 SCMR R 241
1997 CLC 1479
1997 MLD 1917
Like
CommentShare

Evacuee trust property
Bar on jurisdiction of civil court

2014 CLC 1718
PLD 2011 SC 126

Electricity matter

Detection bill
PLD 2012 SC 371
2016 YLR 267
2016 MLD 82
2015 MLD 299
2014 YLR 2551
2011 YLR 1701
PLD 2014 Pesh 271
2014 MLD 1680
PLD 2008 Lah 428

Jurisdiction
PLD 2012 SC 371
2015 MLD 1307
2015 YLR 1598
P L D 2015 Lahore 146

2011 CLC 765
2011 SCMR 226

Custodian of record is the best judge

1984 SCMR 321
1989 SCMR 819
PLD 1991 SC 691

Court Fee

Defamation ordinance
Court fee is necessary
2015 CLC 339

Executing court cannot order court fee
Executing court cannot order court fee 2000 Y L R 2696

General
PLD 1992 FSC 15

Gift
Deceleration of gifts
1986 CLC 2057
2007 YLR 1454

Mutation
1992 SCMR 1306
2007 CLC 36

Possession
2007 SCMR 1884

Pre emption
1985 CLC 275

Contempt proceedings

Custody of minor
PLD 2003 supreme Court 877

PLD 2011 SC 680
PLD 2002 SC 303

Cause of action

Defamation cases
PLD 2015 SC 42

Negation able instrument, cheque
2014 CLC 1448

Benamidar suit

PLD 1977 SC 75
1991 SCMR 703
1994 CLC 1437
2001 SCMR 1443
2005 SCMR 577
2011 SCMR 1550
2015 CLC 973
2015 MLD 642
PLD 2010 SC 569
PLD 2011 SC 829
2015 CLC 696
2008 SCMR 143
2011 CLC 79
PLD 2012 Lah 141

Arbitration

Pre-requisites
PLD 2015 SC 154

Limitation
2015 MLD 1821

Panchayat
PLD 2010 Lah 437

Amendments of pleadings

Pre emption

Amendments of plaint
Allowed
PLD 2001 SC 518

Disallowed
PLD 1978 SC 242
PLD 2007 SC 302
PLD 2013 SC 239
2006 SCMR 315

Amendment in prayer PLD 2001 SC 518
Land mark judgement PLD 1985 SC 345
Oral request for amendment PLD 2001 SC 518
Proposed amendment should be given
Sou moto amendments 2002 CLC 361
Unauthorized amendment 2004 YLR 1256
VIP 2003 YLR 24

Adverse possession

1991 SCMR 2063
2014 MLD 1602

Agreement

Agreement without consideration
1983 CLC 657
2002 SCMT 1089

Oral agreement
Inadequacy of price 2008 SCMR 1639
Mere possession is no ground 2008 YLR 246
No proof of money
No proof of payment
Sale on behalf of other
Suit for declaration is not competent
Suit decreed
2010 MLD 986
2010 SCMR 537
2011 YLR 65

Pleading of an oral condition in contradiction of written
agreement
2014 CLC 1590

Signed by one party only
2010 SCMR 334
2013 YLR 1017
2016 CLC 114

Ex-Officio Justice of Peace can issue directions to FIA for registration of FIR while exercising powers U/S.22A, CrPC.

PLD 2013 ISLAMABAD 26
2013 Law Notes 320

SPECIAL ATTORNEY IN CRIMINAL MATTERS.
Criminal proceedings can be initiated through attorney/مختار خاص.

2015 PCrLJ 506
2011 PCrLJ 774

Lodging of Second FIR. Held; Permissible.

2016 PLD SC P-484

fist information

22-A & 22-B

ARTICLE 175 (3) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN 1973 AND SECTIONS 22-A, AND 25 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE 1898

1- AMENDMENT IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE 1898
A- On November 21, 2002 ex-officio Justice of the Peace in Pakistan were conferred an additional role through promulgation of the Criminal Procedure (Third Amendment) Ordinance (Federal Ordinance No.CXXXI) of 2002 and this role was in respect of entertaining complaints and issuance of appropriate directions to the police authorities concerned regarding registration of criminal cases and in respect of neglect, failure or excess committed by the police authorities in relation to its functions and duties. PLD 2005 Lah 470.
B- The provisions of sections 22-A, & 22-B, Cr.P.C, have been added to the Statute Book whereby Sessions Judges and Judge of a High Court, by virtue of their office being justice of peace, can exercise all powers of a police u/s 54. Cr.P.C. PLD 2002 Kar 328.

2- OBJECT OF THE AMENDMENT

A- Amendments in the Criminal Procedure Code 1898, have been so made to lessen the burden of High Court which was created through filing of writ petitions seeking registration of cases and transfer of investigations. PLD 2007 SC 539, 2005 MLD 1593.
B- Object of Section 22-A Cr.P.C. is only, that if a grievance is voiced with regard to non-registration of FIR in a cognizable offence, Justice of the Peace in terms of said section can only direct/suggest as to whether in the terms of Section 154, Cr.P.C the S.H.O. had acted legally or illegally. 2007 P.Cr.L.J 124.
C- Object of Section 22-A Cr.P.C. is to provide a responsible forum at the door step of citizen for rescue against unlawful declines relating to registration of cases in cognizable offences. PLD 2008 Pesh 53.

3- POWERS OF JOP, TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS UNDER SECTION 22-A(6)(i) Cr.P.C.

A- Only jurisdiction which can be exercised by an Ex-officio Justice of the Peace under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C is to examined whether the information disclosed by the applicant did or did not constitute a cognizable offence and if it did then to direct the concern SHO to record an FIR, without going into the veracity of the information in question and no more. PLD 2007 S.C.539.
B- Ex-officio Justice of Peace is empowered to direct registration of case. 2010 P.Cr.L.J. 1466.

C- Powers conferred on Sessions Judge u/s 22-A (6), Cr.P.C. though are not at par with those of writ mandamus, but are substantially of that nature when Sessions Judge as the justice of peace, could direct in charge of a Police Station to register a criminal case reported to it if cognizable offence was made out. 2005 YLR 3297.

D- Condition precedent is simply two fold; first it must be information and secondly it must relate to a cognizable offence on the face of it and not merely in the light of subsequent events. 2007 P.Cr.L.J 145.
E- Every information relating to commission of a cognizable offence pertains only to the information so supplied and do not pertain to actual commission of the cognizable offence and that information supplied should be about an alleged commission of a cognizable offence of his truthfulness or otherwise the concerned police official has only to satisfy himself to the extent that information is in respect of a cognizable office. PLD 2003 Lah. 228.
F- Under provision of Section 22-A(6) Cr.P.C. complaint regarding non-registration of criminal case can be made before ex-officio Justice of the Peace which u/s 25, Cr.P.C, is Sessions Judge. 2005 P.Cr.L.J. 487.
G- Special provisions of S. 22-A(6)(iii), Cr.P.C. explicitly providers that Sessions Judge acting as Ex-officio justice of the peace can always issue appropriate direction to the police authorities on a complaint regarding none-registration of criminal case or negligence or failure by police authorities in relation to its functions. PLD 2005 Kar 285.
H- Sessions Judge is empowered to issue as ex-officio justice of peace appropriate directions to police authorities on a complaint regarding (i) non-registration of criminal case; (ii) transfer of investigation from one police station to other (iii) to take notice of neglect, failure or excess committed by police authority to relation in its functions and duties. NLR 2004 Crl (Lah) 351.
J- An Ex-officio Justice of the Peace in Pakistan (i-e Sessions Judge and nominated Additional Sessions Judge in the relevant District under section 25, Cr.P.C.) has the power to issue appropriate directions to the police authorities concerned on a complaint regarding non-registration of criminal case, transfer of investigation from one police officer to another and neglect, failure or excess committed by a police authority in relation to its functions and duties. PLD 2005 LHR 470, 2005 P.Cr.L.J 487.
K- Power conferred on ex officio justice of peace under Sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. deal with issues relating to non-registration of FIR, transfer of investigation under article 18(6) of the Police order, 2002 and neglect, failure or excess committed by a Police Authority. 2011 YLR 2141.

L- Ex-officio Justice of Peace is empowered to direct registration of case. 2010 P.Cr.L.J. 1466.

M- Justice of the Peace passed order with direction to SHO concern to record the statement of the petitioner and proceed further strictly in accordance with law. SHO should recorded statement u/s 154, Cr.P.C. and hand-over the copy of the FIR to the petitioner without any delay. 2010 P.Cr.L.J. 296.

N- The Justice of the Peace could issue orders for registration of a case on an application under Sections 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C. against the respondent. PLD 2006 Lah 460.

P- The directions to be issued by an ex-officio justice of peace under this section or to be direction to be concerned Police authorities to attend to the grievance of the complaining person in accordance with the relevant law and through the jurisdiction u/s 22-A (6) Cr.P.C. PLD 2005 Lah.470, PLJ 2005 Lah. 1571.

Q- Sessions Judge acting as Justice of Peace is equally competent to issued appropriate direction regarding registration of case, transfer of investigation or any wrong done by the police authorities in the performance of their duties. 2004 YLR 56.

R- Under S.22-A, Cr.P.C. if Justice of Peace would find that an incident had taken place, then he was required under the law to issue directions for registration of case. 2011 YLR 27.

S- Justice of the Peace is possessed with jurisdiction under section 22-A (6), Cr.P.C, to decide after examining information as to whether or not any cognizable offences made out. He cannot delegate such powers and functions to Police. 2008 YLR 2301.

T- Section 22-A, Cr.P.C. gives power to the Sessions Judge to direct registration of case, in case of failure of the police official to discharge their statutory obligation as vested in them u/s 154, Cr.P.C. PLD 2000 Lah 208, 2004 P.Cr.L.J.1214.

U- Justice of the Peace can issue direction when there is complaint in respect to non-registration of a case and if such complaint is brought before him then he can simply direct that police has to act in accordance with law and entertain the complaint and if cognizable offence is made out then further action be taken in accordance with law. 2008 MLD 1142.

V- Section 22-A (6) has provided authority to Justice of the Peace to issue appropriate direction to police authorities on a complaint regarding non registration of FIR. PLD 2008 Pesh. 53.

W- Perusal of clause (iii) of subsection (6) of Section 22-A show that its purse no embargo for passing such an order during the investigation, if any neglect, failure or excess committed by the Police authority in relation to its functions and duties brought to the notice of court and proper direction to eradicate the failure of the Police Officials in sough. PLD 2008 Pesh 1.

X- Whenever a police officer fails to register a criminal case, a direction to do so can always be issued by the Justice of the Peace u/s 22-A (6) (1) Cr.P.C. though it will be for such officer to determine whether the matter falls u/s 154 or 155. 2007 P.Cr.L.J. 909.
Y- REJECTION OF COMPLAINT BY THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE
a)- Justice of Peace is competent to examined complainant with full application of legal mined and is not supposed to accept and believe the same as gospel of truth. If Justice of Peace after examination or complainant with full application of legal mind comes to the conclusion that allegation set up by complainant person to be ridiculous, or self-contradictory or vague or barred by law or offensive to public policy and accepted standard of morality, he may be legally justify to turn down the request of registration of a case. 2008 YLR 2301.

b)- Application filed under Ss. 22-A(6), 22-B, Cr.P.C., for registration of a case allowed by the ex officio Justice of Peace. Accused challenge the order. Dispute related to shops. Dispute between the parties could be resolved by civil Court, registration in such a case is not approved. 2011 YLR 1768.

c)- Ex-officio Justice of the Peace, after examination of complaint, come to the conclusion that the allegation leveled by the complaining person appears to be false and fabricated, he may be legally justified in turning down the request for registration of a case. PLJ 2012 Cr.C.(Quetta) 581.

Z- ORDER, CONTRARY TO THE POLICE REPORT.
a)- Ex-officio Justice of Peace, if not agreeing with the report furnished by the Police, can pass an order contrary to it. 2007 PCrL.J 1935.

b)- The Ex officio Justice of the Peace can refuse registration of case only if police report discloses no justifiable reason for registration of a case. 2006 P.Cr.L.J. 1775.

AA- DIRECTION, WITHOUT REPORT OF THE POLICE.
a)- If Additional Sessions Judge directs SHO to probe into the matter, to holding preliminary inquiry and report within a week, he should wait for such report. Disposal of the application without waiting for the report is not proper. 2005 YLR 1610.

BB- DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO SHO.
a)- The Justice of the Peace can direct SHO to look into the matter and then decide as to whether a cognizable offence is made out or not. PLD 2009 Lah.232.

b)- He is not supposed to delegate his authority to SHO in slipshod manner and leave the controversy to the judgment of SHO to decide as to what was in accordance with law. 2008 YLR 2406.

c)- Direction given to the SHO by Ex-officio Justice of Peace to initiate proceeding against petitioner under section 182, PPC is beyond the purview of section 22-A, Cr.P.C, and in excess of jurisdiction conferred upon him under the law. PLD 2007 Lah 53.

CC- NO HEARING OF THE ACCUSED
a)- Justice of Peace while deciding the case under sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C, is not required to issue notice to person against whom registration of a case is required but is required to summons the concerned Police Officer so that a direction could be issued to him to register a case. 2011 P.Cr. L.J. 913.
b)- The basic provision provides no hearing of the accused before passing order under section 22-A, Cr.P.C while exercising constitutional jurisdiction in such a case, Court is not obliged to hear the accused. PLD 2000 Lah 208, 2004 P.Cr.L.J.1214.

c)- At the time of first information report, accused persons named in the complaint, have no right of hearing. 2002 P.Cr.L.J 9.

DD- DIRECTION, FOR SECOND FIR
a)- Where the claim or version of an accused is reported by him before the police, under the law the police is required to bring same on record and then to preceded therewith in accordance with law. If such right is denied by the Police/Investigating Officer, the remedy available under S. 22-A Cr.P.C. cannot be jeopardized merely because previously FIR has been recorded and has been investigated. PLD 2009 Lah 8.

b)- Second FIR, in circumstances was permissible under the law. Justice of Peace committed no illegality by issuing the direction for the registration of the FIR on the statement of daughter of the deceased. 2011 YLR 883.

EE- DIRECTION, IN NON-COGNIZABLE OFFENCES.
a)- No bar exists on issuance of directions by the Justice of the Peace to register a case in non-cognizable offence. 2012 P.Cr.L.J 981.

b)- Though no order for registration of case can be passed but Justice of Peace should direct SHO concern to received application for registration of case to enter the same in the Roznamcha and thereafter under section 155(2), Cr.P.C. apply to the Magistrate seeking permission to investigate the matter and proceed strictly in accordance with law. 2008 P.Cr.L.J. 1358.

FF- JURISDICTION/POWERS TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS UNDER SECTION 22-A(6)(ii) Cr.P.C.
a- Power conferred on ex officio justice of peace under Sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. deal with issues relating to non-registration of FIR, transfer of investigation under article 18(6) of the Police order, 2002 and neglect, failure or excess committed by a Police Authority. 2011 YLR 2141.
b- An Ex-officio Justice of the Peace in Pakistan (i-e Sessions Judge and nominated Additional Sessions Judge in the relevant District under section 25, Cr.P.C.) has the power to issue appropriate directions to the police authorities concerned on a complaint regarding non-registration of criminal case, transfer of investigation from one police officer to another and neglect, failure or excess committed by a police authority in relation to its functions and duties. PLD 2005 LHR 470, 2005 P.Cr.L.J 487.
c- Sessions Judge is empowered to issue as ex-officio justice of peace appropriate directions to police authorities on a complaint regarding (i) non-registration of criminal case; (ii) transfer of investigation from one police station to other (iii) to take notice of neglect, failure or excess committed by police authority to relation in its functions and duties. NLR 2004 Crl (Lah) 351.

GG- SATISFACTION OF COURT BEFORE ISSUANCE OF DIRECTION.
a- Under section 22-A (6)(ii), Cr.P.C if ex officio justice of peace receives complaint regarding the transfer of investigate from one police officer to another, in such case he has to satisfy himself whether it is justifiable to transfer the investigation or otherwise for that he may hold inquiry but it should be kept in mind that inquiry should not take a longer period as the police are required to submit the challan within the period of 15 days after registration of the FIR. In case he is satisfied, he has to issue a proper direction to the Superintendent of Police (Investigation) under Article 18(3) of Police Order, 2002 who is competent to transfer the investigation under Article 18(6) of the Police Order…………………. No other role is required to be performed by the ex officio justice of peace. PLD 2009 Kar 14.

HH- CANNOT SUGGEST A PARTICULAR PROCEDURE
a- Justice of the Peace cannot suggest the procedure or give direction to do a certain act as any such direction to suggest a particular procedure of investigation is departure from provision of law. 2011 YLR 2141.

JJ- INTERFERENCE WITH THE INVESTIGATION
a)- Police has got a statutory right to investigate the cognizable offence and such statutory right cannot be interfered by the courts. 2000 P.Cr.L.J 43.

b)- Investigation is the legal duty of the police or other authorized agencies cannot be delegated to any private person or body. 2004 YLR 500.

c)- Only an officer in charge of police station has jurisdiction to investigate a cognizable offence. PLD 1997 SC 408.

d)- Judiciary cannot interfere with the investigation of a police officer as held by the privy council as back as in 1945 in Nazir Ahmed…Vs…The State (AIR 1945 P.C.18), and affirmed by Supreme Court of Pakistan in Shehnaz Begum’s case (PLD 1971 SC 677) and in the case of Brg. Imtiaz…Vs…The State (1994 SCMR 2142).

e)- There is no justification with Justice of Peace to forward request for change of investigation to local police in of statutory provision of Police Order 2002. It is permissible for Justice of Peace to activate process of change of investigation in terms of Article 18(6), Police Order, 2002 particular when written complaint before concerned quarters not disposed of on its merits. 2008 P.Cr.L.J.1374.

f)- Sessions Judge is not empowered under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C. to direct the Investigating Agency to submit challan under a specific provision of law. NLR 2004 Crl (Lah) 351.

g)- The Ex officio justice of peace is not supposed to indulge in inquiries / investigation instead he should direct the I.O. to conduct investigation in accordance with law. Court cannot interfere in the process of collection of evidence under Sections 156 and 157, Cr.P.C. by police. Justice of peace cannot suggest the procedure or given direction to do a certain act as any such direction to suggest a particular procedure of investigation is departure from provision of law. 2011 YLR 2141.

h)- If in their capacity as ex-officio Justice of the Peace judicial officers like Sessions Judges and Additional Sessions Judges are allowed to play a proactive, hands-on and upbeat role of direct interference in the administrative working of the police then such executive role of judicial officer may militate against the constitutional mandate of separation of the judiciary from the Executive enshrined in the Article 173(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.PLD 2005 Lah 470.

j)- Even the superior Courts of Pakistan having constitutional, legal, supervisory and inherent judicial jurisdiction have consistently and consciously refrained from directly interfering with the investigation of a criminal case by the police and, therefore, it is but obvious that Justice of the Peace possessing only administrative and ministerial powers should twice shy of such direct interference. PLD 2005 Lah 470.

k)- Section 22-A (6) Cr.P.C. does not allow an ex-officio Justice of the Peace to put on the mantle of a higher police authority himself and to start exercising all those executive powers himself which the relevant law has vested in the concerned police authorities. PLD 2005 Lah 470.

l)- Conduct and manner of investigation normally is not to be securitized under constitutional jurisdiction which may amount to interference in police investigation as the same cannot be substituted by court. PLD 2009 SC 102.

m)- The Justice of the Peace cannot stop investigation except for want of jurisdiction. 2008 YLR 2271.

n)- Justice of Peace cannot make an observation with regard to the nature of offence or direct addition or deletion of a penal provision as some exclusive as same exclusively fell within the domain of I.O. before the challan is submitted. 2008 YLR 2017, 2007 PCr.L.J 124, 2006 YLR 2772.

p)- No investigation can be carried out in a criminal case and relevant FIR cannot be cancelled by a Magistrate or by any other judicial or executive officer after submission of challan before trial court and after taking cognizance of case by trial court. 2005 MLD 908.

q)- Judiciary should not interfere with the police in matters which are within their domain and into which the law imposes upon them the duty of inquiry Functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary not overlapping and the combination of individual liberty with due observation of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own functions………..investigation stage is outside the purview of court. PLD 1996 Lah 598.

r)- It is by the Supreme Court in Muhammad Nisa Cheema case (PLD 2007 SC 31) that when investigation has reached in trial court and the trial commenced, changing of investigation in the matter thereafter is an exercise unsustainable in law. PLD 2010 Lah 224.

s)- The Guilt or innocence, collection of evidence, recording of the statement and recovery of weapon of offence and all other matters (medical examination of accused) relating to investigation of case are within the powers and authority of police, which should not be interfered with except in exceptional cases. Police should be given free hand to investigate the case with its own wisdom. 2004 YLR 2291.

t)- Actions of the investigating agencies are out of the purview of the courts. PLD 1965 SC 27, PLD 1976 SC 271.

u)- There are no powers with the court to quash an investigation. PLD 1993 SC 399.

v)- Provision of S.22-A, Cr.P.C, cannot override the specific provisions contained in Chapter LXIII Cr.P.C., which squarely and fully regulate the process as to whom articles were to be given in custody and in what condition. Such authority, judicial in nature has been exclusively conferred upon the Magistrate. 2010 P.Cr.L.J. 45.

KK- JURISDICTION/POWERS TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS UNDER SECTION 22-A(6)(iii) Cr.P.C.
a- An Ex-officio Justice of the Peace in Pakistan (i-e Sessions Judge and nominated Additional Sessions Judge in the relevant District under section 25, Cr.P.C.) has the power to issue appropriate directions to the police authorities concerned on a complaint regarding non-registration of criminal case, transfer of investigation from one police officer to another and neglect, failure or excess committed by a police authority in relation to its functions and duties. PLD 2005 LHR 470, 2005 P.Cr.L.J 487.
b- Special provisions of S. 22-A(6)(iii), Cr.P.C. explicitly providers that Sessions Judge acting as Ex-officio justice of the peace can always issue appropriate direction to the police authorities on a complaint regarding none-registration of criminal case or negligence or failure by police authorities in relation to its functions. PLD 2005 Kar 285.
c- Special powers of Justice of Peace having been conferred upon Session’s Judge and Additional Sessions Judge under section 25, Cr.P.C. They have vested with some executive powers which are given under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C regarding neglect, failure of excess committed by a Police authority in relation to its functions and duties. The Justice of Peace can issue and appropriate direction, if he notices illegality or excess of authority. PLD 2009 Lah. 69.
d- Power conferred on ex officio justice of peace under Sections 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C. deal with issues relating to non-registration of FIR, transfer of investigation under article 18(6) of the Police order, 2002 and neglect, failure or excess committed by a Police Authority. 2011 YLR 2141.

e- Special provisions of S. 22-A(6)(iii), Cr.P.C. explicitly providers that Sessions Judge acting as Ex-officio justice of the peace can always issue appropriate direction to the police authorities on a complaint regarding none-registration of criminal case or negligence or failure by police authorities in relation to its functions. PLD 2005 Kar 285.

f- It has been noticed with grave concern the Ex-officio Justice of the Peace in many cases frequently issue directions to the superior officers of the police seized of the investigation of a case to take departmental disciplinary action against him/them. Such powers have not been expressly conferred upon the Ex-officio Justice of the Peace, therefore, they shall refrain from issuing such orders because it would result into penalty/penal consequences. 2011 P.Cr.L.J 45.

LL- INTERFERE IN THE AFFAIRS OF JUDICIARY
a)- Executives are not supposed to interfere in the affairs of judiciary any manner. PLD 2008 SC 522.
b)- Provisions of Section 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C. are not meant to interfere in the judicial functions of the Courts if after investigation the challan is submitted and cognizance is taken by the Court of competent jurisdiction. 2005 YLR 3127.
c)- The powers exercise by ex officio Justice Peace u/s 22-A, Cr.P.C. are neither additional nor has super imposing effect on the power of the executive and judicial authorities which have been expressly conferred upon those authorities regulating particular subject matter. In the capacity of administration officer it can over see and check the atrocities committed by the police and to direct them to abide by the law and not to disregard it, but to a very limited extent. 2010 P.Cr.L.J. 45, PLD 1971 S.C.677; 1994 SCMR 2142.
d)- Court would proceed to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused on the basis of evidence produced before it. 2012 P.Cr. L.J. 245.

e)- Court only has the right to hold a person innocent or guilty. 1998 P.Cr.L.J 1804.

MM- COMPLIANCE OF THE DIRECTION OF THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE.
a- Explicit order/direction, passed by Justice of the Peace, must have been compiled with in letter of and spirit, when said order was not set aside by any court of law or the operation thereof had been stayed. 2012 P.Cr.L.J 180.

NN- POWERS OF THE JOP, ARE ADMINISTRATIVE AND MINISTERIAL.
a- Sessions Judge /Additional Sessions Judges while performing their duties as Ex officio Justice of Peace would perform their duties on administrative site. 2010 YLR 1598.

b- Registration of criminal case, transfer of investigation and issuance of restrain order not to cause harassment etc, are essentially administrative functions. PLD 2002 Lah 619.
c- Functions to be performed by a Justice of the Peace or an ex-officio Justice of the Peace are merely administrative and ministerial in nature and character. PLD 2005 Lah 470.

d- Justice of the Peace is saddled with the administrative duty to redress the grievances of complainant aggrieved by refusal of police officer to register their reports. 2011 P.Cr.L.J. 268.

e- Powers are neither supervisory nor judicial, but are administrative and ministerial in nature. PLD 2005 Kar 621.

PP- POWERS OF THE JOP, ARE LIMITED
a- Powers of Justice of Peace are very limited which have been given to aid assist and authorize the criminal jurisdiction system. PLD 2005 Kar 621.

b- The powers exercise by ex officio Justice Peace u/s 22-A, Cr.P.C. are neither additional nor has super imposing effect on the power of the executive and judicial authorities which have been expressly conferred upon those authorities regulating particular subject matter. In the capacity of administration officer he can over see and check the atrocities committed by the police and to direct them to abide by the law and not to disregard it, but to a very limited extent. 2010 P.Cr.L.J. 45.

c- Powers of an Justice of the Peace under section 22-A(6), Cr.P.C could therefore, not be equated with the constitutional jurisdiction vesting in a High Court. PLD 2007 SC 539.

9- POWERS OF THE JOP, CANNOT BE EXERCISED MECHANICALLY
A- Jurisdiction under Ss. 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C, cannot be exercised mechanically by the ex officio justice of peace by directing registration of FIR. 2011 P.Cr.L.J 438, PLD 2010 S.C. 691.
ALTERNATIVE REMEDY
C- Application under Sections 22-A and 22-B was dismissed by justice of peace and the order was maintain by single Judge of the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. Appellant had adequate alternative remedy by filing a private complaint in respect of allegations being leveled against respondent. ICA dismissed. 2011 P.Cr.L.J. 3906.

D- Any order passed by Justice of Peace is subject to scrutiny on judicial side by Superior Court of Pakistan, therefore, administrative legal forum is required to disposed an application under sections 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C, by means of speaking and well reasons order in the light of available material without holding trial or mini trial of the controversy. 2008 YLR 2301.

10- DIRECTION CANNOT BE ISSUED FOR ADDITION OR DELETION OF OFFENCES.
A- No powers had been vested in the Justice of the Peace to pass order for insertion of appropriate/specific sections of law in the FIR. 2012 P.Cr.L.J 873.

B- Under the provisions of section 9(7) of the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service Act, 2006, deletion or insertion of any offence falls within the exclusive domain of the District Prosecutor. Question whether the District Prosecutor had rightly deleted section would be seen by the trial Court at the time of framing the charge, such fact cannot be challenged either under section 22-A, 22-B Cr.P.C., or in constitution jurisdiction of High Court. PLD 2008 Lah 135.

C- Under the provisions of section 10(2)(a) of the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service Act, 2006, the Prosecutor General, appointed under section 6 of Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service Act, 2006 can also add or delete any offence.

D- Justice of Peace cannot make an observation with regard to the nature of offence or direct addition or deletion of a penal provision as some exclusive as same exclusively fell within the domain of I.O. before the challan is submitted. 2008 YLR 2017, 2007 P.Cr.L.J 124, 2006 YLR 2772.

E- No power s had been vested in the Justice of the Peace to pass order for insertion of appropriate/specific sections of law in the FIR. 2012 P.Cr.L.J 873.

11- IMPOSING FINE BY THE JUSTICE OF THE PEACE.
A- Direction given to the SHO by Ex-officio Justice of Peace to initiate proceeding against petitioner under section 182, PPC is beyond the purview of section 22-A, Cr.P.C, and in excess of jurisdiction conferred upon him under the law. PLD 2007 Lah 53.

B- Sessions Court was neither justified nor empowered to impose fine/costs upon the petitioner while rejecting the petition filed under section 22-A Cr.P.C. PLD 2005 Kar. 638.

C- Secessions Judge, in circumstances, is not competent to direct initiation of proceedings against petitioner under section 182, PPC. 2004 P.Cr.L.J.256.

12- DIRECTIONS REGARDING CANCELLATION OF FIR OR HOLDING DEPARTMENTAL INQUIRIES.
A- Prayer by respondent before Sessions Judge regarding cancellation of FIR after holding an inquiry in that respect could not be granted by Sessions Judge acting in his capacity as ex-officio Justice of the peace. Other prayer of respondent regarding holding of a departmental inquiry against petitioner/complainant also could not be granted by ex-officio Justice of the Peace because that was a matter which was already being taken by departmental hierarchy. 2005 MLD 908.

B- The quashing or cancellation of the cross-version shall be subject to the same legal and factual limitations as are relevant for the quashing of the formal FIR. The Criminal Procedure Code has laid down exhaustive procedure for the registration and investigating of the cases as well as their trial after submission of the challan before the Court. They should not be allowed to be hampered against the procedure laid down in that behalf. PLD 2009 Lah 8.

13- RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES.
Justice of Peace is not supposed to decide the rights of the parties. He is not supposed to pass judicial judgment. 2011 P.Cr.L.J.913.

14- JUDICIAL JUDGMENT.
A- Justice of Peace is not supposed to decide the rights of the parties he is not supposed to pass judicial judgment. 2011 P.Cr. L.J. 913.

B- Where Justice of the Peace while disposing of the application under section 22-A Cr.P.C. had discussed and touched the merits of the case in detail, which was not required as the same would definitely prejudice the proceedings before the trial court, such observations of the Justice of the Peace were ordered by the High Court to be expunged. High Court directed that in the interest of justice, the trial of the case should be conducted by another Trial Court. 2012 P.Cr. L.J. 383.

C- Justice of the Peace being not a court had no authority or jurisdiction to offer special oath on the asking of the parties. 2012 P.Cr. L.J. 776.
D- An ex-officio Justice of the Peace cannot arrogate to himself the powers of redressing the actual grievance itself. PLD 2005 Lah 470.
E- Restoration of possession and registration of criminal case cannot be sought on one and the same application court below did not fulfill the formalities required under Section 22-A, Cr.P.C and under the illegal disposition Act, 2005 and passed order without Framing the charge or holding inquiry. 2011 YLR 861.

F- The Justice of the Peace could issue orders for registration of a case on an application under Sections 22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C. against the respondent but could not direct the police to interfere in the possession of the property. PLD 2006 Lah 460.

15- SURETY BOND FROM BOTH THE PARTIES.
Justice of the Peace on the basis of an allegation leveled by the complainant in an application under section 22-A Cr.P.C. without considering the requirements as mandate under section 107 and 151, Cr.P.C directed the SHO to proceed against the parties, therefore, impugned order to the extent of direction to the SHO for obtaining surety bond from both the parties and taking preventive measures under section 107 and 151 Cr.P.C was set aside. 2012 P.Cr.L.J 1082.

16- FALSE COMPLAINANT
If the complainant is found to have lodged a false report, a case can be registered against him under section 182 P.P.C, or any other action could be initiated against him according to law. Section 154, Cr.P.C, secures the inherent right of hearing of a citizen and it bestows a sacred duty upon State machinery established in every police to register the cognizable grievance of citizen. PLD 2008 Pesh. 53.

17- POWERS TO ALTER OR RECTIFY THE ORDER PASSED U/S 22-A, Cr.P.C.
A- High Court has got inherent powers to alter or rectify its order if any ambiguity had been created therein or any point which should have been thoroughly considered at the time of passing the order on the Revision. Sessions Court was neither justified nor empowered to impose fine/costs upon the petitioner while rejecting the petition filed under section 22-A Cr.P.C. While maintaining its order, recalled and altered the same to the extent that imposition of fine by the Sessions Court was not justified and such part of its order was set aside. PLD 2005 Kar. 638.

B- Functions and directions of the Ex-officio Justice of the Peace being not of judicial nature but being administrative and ministerial in nature, could neither be challenged under Sections 435/439, Cr.P.C nor under Article 199 of the Constitution and the same could be challenged only under S. 561-A, Cr.P.C. PLD 2005 kar.621.

C- Any order passed by Justice of Peace is subject to scrutiny on judicial side by Superior Court of Pakistan, therefore, administrative legal forum is required to disposed an application under sections 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C, by means of speaking and well reasons order in the light of available material without holding trial or mini trial of the controversy. 2008 YLR 2301.

18- ALTERNATE ADEQUATE REMEDY WITH THE AGGRIEVED PARTY.
A- Application under Sections 22-A and 22-B was dismissed by justice of peace and the order was maintain by single Judge of the High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. Appellant had adequate alternative remedy by filing a private complaint in respect of allegations being leveled against respondent. ICA dismissed. 2011 P.Cr.L.J. 3906.

B- Private complaint is an alternative and efficacious remedy and Magistrate seized of the complaint can inquire the matter himself or might direct an inquiry to be conducted by Justice of the Peace or by a police officer. 2011 P.Cr.L.J. 1870.

C- SHO not supporting registration of case. If such in report can be falsified, it would be appropriate for him to file a private complaint before Court of competent jurisdiction instead of running after police who was not prepared to accept his contention. Only a Court of competent jurisdiction, after recording convincing evidence of petitioner, could issue summons against respondents and if found them guilty, could punish them in accordance with law. 2005 P.Cr.L.J.1579, 2005 P.Cr.L.J.997.

C- If the police were not favorably inclined towards the petitioner/complainant on account of any interest in the accused persons, they were likely to spoil her case in the first few Zimnies which they were bound to record after registration of the case. Issuing a direction for registration of case, in such circumstances, would not serve any useful purpose and the insistence of the petitioner (complainant) to get a criminal case registered would be quite unrealistic. According to the dictates of remedy by filing a private complaint directly before the Magistrate would be more effective and appropriate. 2005 P.Cr.L.J.1517.

D- Petitioner wanted to set forth a version regarding the manner in which the incident took place which was in fact supplementation and amplification of the version recorded earlier. The petitioner might file a private complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C, which is one of the modes of taking cognizance of an offence by Magistrate. 2011 P.Cr.L.J.1870.

E- Appellant having alternate remedy by way of filling a private complaint. PLD 2007 SC 539, 2011 P.Cr.L.J 396.

F- Experience shows that there are cases where the complainant party may be better off in pressing its allegations and remaining in control of its case by filing a private complaint rather than forcing the police to register a criminal case and to investigate when the police is itself not convinced of the complainant party’s allegations. The impression entertained by large section of the legal community in Pakistan that in case of filing of a private complaint the accused person cannot be arrested and recovery cannot be affected from him is nothing but erroneous and fallacious. PLD 2005 Lah 470.

19- RESULT/OUT COME OF THE AMENDMENT IN Cr.P.C.
A- The result is a major departure, from the scheme heretofore in vogue regarding the administration of justice relating to crimes as it was for the first time that through the said amending ordinance, the Sessions Judges and the Additional Sessions Judges who were the trial and the Appellate Courts on the criminal side, had been called upon to also supervise what were, purely and essentially, the police functions i-e the registration and investigation of criminal cases. PLD 2007 SC 539.

B- In many cases, the Justice of the peace conveniently ignored the allotted sphere of their jurisdiction conferred upon them by under the three clauses of subsection (6) of section 22-A, Cr.P.C. and indulge in deep interference into the police inquiry / investigation as well as jurisdiction conferred upon it by different provisions of Cr.P.C. Criminal justice system had been divided into three phases viz, investigation phase followed by inquiry phase and the final stage related to the trial phase. For all the three phases, different authorities like police, Illaqa Magistrate and Sessions Court had been constitute and established by the law; and their respective authorities/powers had been clearly defined; and a line of demarcation in between the three phases had been drawn with much clarity. Object and intent of the legislature behind scheme was that all the three authorities would not interfere into the allotted field of jurisdiction of one another. PLD 2007 SC 539, 2010 P.Cr.L.J.45.

C- If in their capacity as ex-officio Justice of the Peace judicial officers like Sessions Judges and Additional Sessions Judges are allowed to play a proactive, hands-on and upbeat role of direct interference in the administrative working of the police then such executive role of judicial officer may militate against the constitutional mandate of separation of the judiciary from the Executive enshrined in the Article 173(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.PLD 2005 Lah 470.

D- The learned Sessions Judges/Additional Sessions Judges have been conferred powers under section 22-A and 22-B, Cr.P.C to lessen the burden of High Court but apparently, it seems it has increased. The purpose of empowering Sessions Judges is being stultified and baulked. 2005 P.Cr.L.J 607.

20- BASIC PRINCIPAL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
A- Entire criminal justice system revolves around the basic principal that no offence should go unchecked and no offender should go unpunished. PLD 2005 Kar 621.

21- QUASI JUDICAIL POWERS
A- According to a recent judgment dated 12-02-2016, passed by the August Supreme Court, the orders passed by the Ex-Officio Justice of peace are quasi judicial in nature and cannot be termed as executive, administrative, or ministrial.
22 SEPARATION OF POWERS
A- Criminal Justice System has been divided into three phase’s viz, investigation phase followed by inquiry phases and the final stage related to the prior phase. Object and intent of the legislature behind such scheme is that all the three authorities would not interfere into the allotted field of jurisdiction of one another. Justice of peace under no circumstances would interfere with such matter and be left to the authorities both executive and judicial constituted hereunder. 2011 P.Cr.L.J 45.
B- Executives are not supposed to interfere in the affairs of judiciary any manner. PLD 2008 SC 522.