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 #Bail before arrest, refusal of Section-498, 155, 173, 177 & 190 P.P.C, 467, 468, 471, 420 & 409 PPC 5(2)47-PCA allegation Accused was alleged to have an electricity connection installed in connivance with the WAPDA officials on the basis of bogus ownership documents

2017 PCrLJ 440     

LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Ss. 498, 155, 173, 177 & 190----Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 467, 468, 471, 420 & 409---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5---Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act (III of 2006)---Bail before arrest, refusal of---Accused was alleged to have an electricity connection installed in connivance with the WAPDA officials on the basis of bogus ownership documents---Accused filed an application to the Special Judge (Central) for anticipatory bail on the ground that the complainant had no nexus with the plot in dispute---Special Judge (Central), while allowing the application, observed that the case was triable by an ordinary court and therefore ordered the Investigating Officer to delete the offence under S. 409, P.P.C. and S. 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947---Question before the High Court was whether the Special Judge (Central) had the jurisdiction to consider the point of its jurisdiction to entertain pre-arrest bail application at the stage when it was going to decide the same---Court could take cognizance of a case at any stage, including the stage when the bail application was under consideration of the court---Material available before the Special Judge (Central), when it had proceeded to decide the bail, was to be seen---Investigating Agency, at that stage, was still busy in sorting out the true facts of the case and had not opined that the offence was not triable by the Special Judge or the offences were not made out---Prosecution having no evidence to make such an opinion, at bail stage, the court could not take cognizance of the case---Court below had found that the offence under S. 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and S. 409, P.P.C. were not made out, which observation had been given in ignorance of the fact that the Investigating Officer had found the Sub-Divisional Officer and Line Superintendent of WAPDA having been involved in granting electricity connection at the premises of the accused; even otherwise, said finding of the court amounted to decision of the whole case, at the stage when no challan was before it---Sufficient material was available with the prosecution to bring its case within the jurisdiction of Special Judge (Central)---Special Court had no jurisdiction to order for deletion or addition of offence and sending the aggrieved person to the ordinary court, unless and until final report under S. 173, Cr.P.C had been submitted in the court---Court had been vested with the powers to order deletion or addition of the offence, at the stage when it framed charge against the persons concerned and not before that---Prosecution agency, under Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006, enjoyed the powers to delete or add the offence, according to the facts and evidence collected by the agency, before submitting the report under S. 173, Cr.P.C to the court---Impugned order of the court below was, therefore, not sustainable in the eye of law---High Court, declaring the impugned order as having no legal consequence, held that court might exercise such jurisdiction when final report was submitted before it and when it proceeded to frame the charge against the culprit---Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Case Law on Section 265-A, Cr.P.C-Authorised person to conduct trial on behalf of prosecution before Court,

2018 MLD 489 

LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Ss. 265-A, 493 & 540---Authorised person to conduct trial on behalf of prosecution before Court---Scope---Complainant was a necessary party in cases involving murder and hurt to body, which fact did not make him incharge of the prosecution---Section 265-A, Cr.P.C. carried a specific stipulation that in every sessions trial initiated upon a police report, the prosecution was to be conducted by the Public prosecutor ---Section 493, Cr.P.C. laid down that the Public prosecutor would plead in all cases under his charge before any court and the pleaders privately instructed were to act under his direction---Public prosecutor had the authority to give up any witness in the case, though he was to consult the complainant/petitioner and his counsel in that regard---Statement recorded by the counsel for the complainant to give up a witnesses in the case which was contrary to the statute, had no legal effect and was not binding on the prosecution---Record transpired that application under S. 540, Cr.P.C. was filed by complainant and not by the prosecutor ; such application was not maintainable in view of Ss. 265-A & 493, Cr.P.C. 

Case Law on Medico-legal opinion, Description of injuries, domain of Medico-Legal officers

PLD 2017 SC 730

Vol. II, Ch. XXV, R. 25.19(1)---Medico-legal opinion---Description of injuries by the Medico-legal Officer in the examination report---Scope---Practice of describing the sections of penal law under which the injuries fell by the Medico-legal Officer---Supreme Court deprecated such practice by Medico-Legal officers and observed that they should not assume the status of the prosecution/prosecutor s, as such was neither their domain nor they had lawful authority to direct or convey to the Investigating Agency the nature of offence; that the Medico-legal Officers should (only) describe the nature of injuries under the dispensation of law and not the provision of law, under which it fell. 

case law on Application for withdrawal of prosecutiion S.494 Cr.P.C

PLD   2019  Quetta 12

--Application for withdrawal of prosecution was filed by the prosecutor, as he alone was competent to do so as provided by S.494 Cr.P.C.---After the dismissal of the said application, the prosecutor or the government did not challenge dismissal order---Accused had no locus standi to challenge such order nor could request for withdrawal of the case thus, the constitutional petition was incompetent--  

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.  

Case Laws

PLD 2018  Lah151 

S. 173, Cr.PC-proviso [as added by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act (XXV of 1992)]---Investigation---Interim report---Scope---Investigation was to be completed without unnecessary delay and as soon as it was completed, Officer-in-charge of the Police Station was required to submit challan through Public prosecutor but not later than fourteen days---If the investigation was not completed within a stipulated period of fourteen days from the date of recording of FIR then Officer-in-charge of Police Station would submit an interim report within three days of expiry of period of fourteen days stating therein the result of investigation---Court on the basis of such interim report, would commence trial.  

#Prosecution side case law

#how trial starts

#challan and commencement of trial