Appeal/Case No: Writ Petition No. 8985 of 2011
It can be said without any fear of contradiction that the District Public Prosecutor or Prosecutor is not just a post office or forwarding agency.
It can be said without any fear of contradiction that the District Public Prosecutor or Prosecutor is not just a post office or forwarding agency.
The District Public Prosecutor, Nankana Sahib, while making reference to the provisions of Section 9 of The Punjab Cranial Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006 (III of 2006) maintained that the District Public Prosecutor is obliged and required to distribute work to the prosecutors with respect to the Court of Sessions and Courts of Magistrates within the District and while exercising said power he assigned different duties including exanimation of Report under Section 173 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898). Making reference to Section 9(5) of the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006 (Ill of 2006), it was contended that according to sub-section the prosecutor is obliged and required to scrutinize Report or request and¬ then to proceed further as envisaged in clauses (a) & (b) of sub-section (5) of the Act of 2006 the Word “scrutiny” is of significance. The expression "scrutinize" has not been defined in The Act- III of 2006 and as such dictionary meaning has to be taken into consideration. The Expression “scrutiny” has been defined in the Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (Eleventh Edition) which is re- produced for ready reference:---
Scrutiny:- Scrutinium, fr. scrutari to search, examine, prob, fr. ScrutA trash (164) 1: a searching study, inquiry, or inspection: EXAMINATION 2. a searching look 3: close watch.”
Keeping in view the definition now I will examine the duties and powers of the prosecutor. Duty has been caste upon the prosecutor to carefully examine Reprot or request made by the police as and when the same is submitted to the office of the order of the Court and medico-legal District Public Prosecutor. Memo. of objection has been placed on record by the District Public Prosecutor, Nankana Sahib, according to which, the statement of both injured persons (detenus) were not recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898). Similarly, it was opined that both the detenus i.e. Nazir Ahmad and Khurshid Ahmad were medically examined on 17th of March, 2011 by certificates duly issued by the Medical Officer are on the file suggesting injuries on the persons of the detenus which was information to establish the stance of the complainant regarding torture by the police but the same were not considered by the Investigating Officer. The learned law officer raised four objections and cancellation report was returned with the direction to submit the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Keeping in view the language and text of Section 9(5) of Act III of 2006, it can be said without any fear of contradiction that District Public Prosecutor or Prosecutor is not just a post office or forwarding agency. Conscious application of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 or cancellation report. If the prosecutor cannot examine such reports by applying his judicial mind then submission of Reports to the office of District Public Prosecutor will be an exercise in futility. The prosecutor is obliged to examine all aspects of case by attending the material available on record. One can will imagine the sanctity of cancellation report prepared without recording the statements of detenus under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Preparation of cancellation Report in utter disregard of Medico-legal certificates issued after medical examination of detenus by the order of the Court is also not understandable.Viewed from which ever angle i.e. on legal as well as factual premises, objections raised at the instance of learned Law officer are hardly subject to any exception and as such petition being devoid of any force is dismissed.Petition dismissed
K.L.R. 2012 Criminal Cases 5 MEHMOOD MAQBOOL BAJWA, J. Appeliant & Repondent : Muhammad Amin Vs S.H.O. and others Appeal/Case No:Writ Petition No. 8985 of 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment