Case Law on #District Prosecutor, could not be challenged either #under_Ss.22-A & #22-B, #Cr.P.C., Art.199,Constitution of Pakistan.

2015 PLD 84 

LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

(MUHAMMAD SHARIF CASE)

District Prosecutor, could not be challenged either under Ss.22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C

S. 9(7)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.22-A & 22-B---Constitutional jurisdiction--- Scope---Powers of District Prosecutor---Deletion or insertion of any offence- 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 Investigating Police Agency and District Prosecutor- Question whether the Police or District Prosecutor had rightly deleted or inserted the sections of law, was to be seen by the Trial Court at the time of framing of the charge---Such act by the Investigating Agency or the District Prosecutor, could not be challenged either under Ss.22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C. or under constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, as that would amount to interference in the investigation.  

#Case_Law on #Additional witnesses #Due process of law #S-265-F(3) of Cr.P.C #S-161 of Cr.P.C.

 2016  PCrLJ  197     

KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Ss. 265-F (3), 493 & 540---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10A---Additional witnesses---Complainant's counsel---Status---Due process of law---During trial, application was filed on behalf of complainant to summon two persons as prosecution witnesses, who were not included in calendar of witnesses---Application filed by complainant was dismissed by Trial Court---Validity---Witnesses who were not named in Challan could not be introduced by complainant unless their evidence would appear to Trial Court essential for the just decision of the case---Counsel for complainant could only assist prosecution and while producing their own witnesses independently, complainant stepped out of the position of assisting the prosecution---Order passed by Trial Court covered provisions of S. 265-F(3), Cr.P.C.---Without a gist of evidence of prosecution witnesses recorded by Investigating Officer under S. 161, Cr.P.C. provided to opposite side, examination of such witnesses by court at the instance of complainant would be violation of Art. 10A of the Constitution---High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Trial Court---Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Case Law on #Remand #Physical remand #police custody Under Section 167-Cr.P.C, It was prerogative of the Learned Prosecutor to request for the physical remand of the accused, Physical remand/police custody on application of complainant/private person after judicial remand---Permissibility

2016 PCrLJ 1566

LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

It was prerogative of the Learned Prosecutor to request for the physical remand of the accused.

S. 167--- Physical remand/police custody on application of complainant/private person after judicial remand---Permissibility---Magistrate had sent the accused to the judicial lockup, as he was no more required for physical remand by the police---District Public prosecutor , nor any other representative of the State, had raised any objection, while the accused was being sent to the judicial lockup---State had also not assailed the order of judicial remand, and the complainant alone had impugned the same in his private capacity---Section 167, Cr.P.C. was clear on the point that any person in his private capacity could not have applied for the police custody of the accused---Impugned order of physical remand was set aside accordingly. 

Case Law on S. 249-A, Cr.P.C, prosecution, against condonation of delay

PCrLJ  2019  Lah 1241   

---Trial Court, after hearing Public prosecutor as well as counsel for accused, had pronounced the judgment, hence the procedure prescribed under S. 249-A, Cr.P.C. was duly complied with---Under S. 493, Cr.P.C., it was only Public prosecutor who had to conduct the prosecution and if there was any private counsel, engaged by the complainant, he was required to act under the instructions of the Public prosecutor ---Stance of the appellant that he should have been given notice was of no legal value---No reason, cause or justification to condone the delay was made out---Appeal, being barred by time, was dismissed.