Code of Criminal Procedure/Islami Act

Code does not lay down about the functioning of the District Criminal Court — It also does not lay down as to how Courts will proceed if there is difference of opinion or what would be done if one of the members is absent — All the matters are given in detail in Islami Act— In our view Islami Act and Cr.P.C. are a group of laws which are interwoven and the provisions of both the aforesaid laws have to be given effect to — In sub-section (3) of section 23 of the Islami Act it is specifically stated that if one member is absent the other member will exercise all the powers given in the Criminal Procedure Code — This in itself is sufficient to apply sub-section (3) to trial being conducted by the District Criminal Court under the Cr.P.C. Zahid Hussain Mirza v. The State and another 2000 SCR 524 (C)
Police under no law estopped to reinvestigate the case against the accused and to submit subsequent report before the Court. Mirdad Khan v. Zahir Shah and others 2000 SCR 344 (H)
S.5(2) — (Special Act — Silent about procedure — Cr.P.C. will apply — S.5(2) would reveal that it is not intended to be all embracing and exhaustive of the Criminal Procedure — A special Act creating the offences may also create a special forum and a special procedure — Where no such procedure has been provided for, then the normal procedure in the Code shall have the application — In a case under special law, wherein a complete procedure has been provided for, then the Code would have no application —However, where a special procedure has been prescribed, by a special Act only for some matters, then the provisions contained in the Code would be excluded only to that extent and not beyond. The State & another v. Javed Iqbal 2001 SCR 1 (E)
It is not visualised by any of the provisions of Cr.P.C. wherein it was simply stated that the convict-appellant be heard personally and the case be decided on merits.Muhammad Asif v. The State 2002 SCR 108 (B)
From the judgment in Civil Appeal No.12/2002 decided on 22.11.2002 the following principles have been laid down :-i. the police is free submit its subsequent report after proper reinvestigation into the matter and the same is to be submitted to the trial Court which is competent to proceed against the accused-petitioners(appellants therein): and ii the Court shall apply its judicial mind and if from the fresh material as well as the previous material collected by the police it reaches the conclusion that the accused are prima facie guilty of cognizable offence, it shall issue process to the accused-petitioners (appellants therein) to face the trial according to law otherwise not.— The language of above observation is absolutely clear and there should be no misconception to anyone with regard to the observations — The whole matter is left to the discretion of trial Court which is the only competent forum to proceed against the accused — If they are found guilty, the trial Court may issue process against them — What is the meaning of ‘process’ every judicial officer or a Court of law is bound to understand it — Nowhere in the previous judgment it is observed that the Court may cancel the bail of accused and hand them over to police — Accused have not been left at the mercy of police rather their fate is to be determined by the trial Court.M. Ajmal Khan v. Asif Shah & others 2003 SCR 164 (A)
Question of filing the delayed F.I.R. and statement of prosecution witness recorded after a considerable time would have to be tested in regular evidence —- Whether a video cassette is that of accused-respondent and the same connects the accused-respondent with the offence — The accumulative effect of all the pieces of evidence shows that matter requires further inquiry — Both the trial Court and Shariat Court, have proceeded to allow concession of bail to accused-respondents — Weight has to be given to the opinion of trial Court. Khalid Hussain v. Kala Khan and 2 others 2003 SCR 522 (B)
Accused involved in heinous cases like murder have developed a tendency to abscond, therefore, sureties do not deserve any leniency. Muhammad Ayub v. Muzaffar Khan and another 2004 SCR 547 (B) 2001 P. Cr.L.J SC (AJK) 1749, PLJ 2001 SC (AJK) 178 rel.
An authority in one bail matter is hardly relevant in the other bail matter; however, the broader principles are to be taken into consideration. M. Azam v. Farzand Ali Khan 2004 SCR 198 (C)
Bail — Could have been cancelled provided it would have been shown that the bail granting orders passed by the Courts below are perverse, capricious and arbitrary. Muhammad Azam v. Farzand Ali Khan and 4 others 2004 SCR 198 (B)
Normally the trial of the accused is to take place within the jurisdiction of that Court where the occurrence took place and in order to transfer a case from one district to another or from one place to another, a strong reason is required to justify the transfer of case. Muhammad Adeel v. Haji Abdul Bari 2004 SCR 1 (C)
S.P./D.S.P. Mirpur Azad Kashmir directed to escort the prosecution witnesses, namely Haji Abdul Bari and Siraj Din, from Mangla Bridge to Distrist-Criminal Court Mirpur on the dates fixed for recording their evidence — The aforesaid witnesses also escorted back from the said Court to their destination or where they want to be left out in order to avoid some uncalled for incident. Muhammad Adeel v. Haji Abdul Bari 2004 SCR 1 (D)
Transfer of case — It is indeed true that if an apprehension appears to a particular party that it will not get fair and impartial trial at the particular place due to influence of the other side, the transfer of the case is justified — But at the same time the apprehension must be deducible from the record of the case and should not be based on mere assumptions and without, any adverse circumstances brought on record by the party seeking the transfer of the case.Muhammad Adeel v. Haji Abdul Bari 2004 SCR 1 (B)
Vicarious Liability — Bail Stage — It is difficult to determine the question of vicarious liability unless it overflows from the prosecution story — Question of various liability would normally arise if there be (I) common object, (ii) in furtherance of common object the accused must have acted towards the commission of offence; and (iii) there must be conspiracy hatched between the accused persons for accomplishing their object. M. Azam v. Farzand Ali Khan 2004 SCR 198 (A)
Under the provision of Cr.P.C the examination and cross examination of a particular witness are necessary to test the credibility and veracity of a witness who is produced in support of a particular incident by the prosecution Rukhsar Ah. & others v. The State & another 2005 SCR 205 (A)
Chapter XX — Relates to trial of the cases by Magistrate while Chapter XXII-A relates to trial before the High Court and Court of Sessions — Trial conducted by District Criminal Court which is substituted for the Court of Sessions Judge, the procedure visualized by Chapter XXII-A would apply.Hakam Deen v. State & 16 others 2005 SCR 314 (A)
Distinction between investigation by Police and trial by Court — Former relates to the pre trial procedure by Investigating Officer or Magistrate, — While later relates to trial of the cases on the basis of report after investigation or inquiry as the case may be. State through Advocate General v. Hakam Deen & 15 others 2005 SCR 374 (B)
Chap XX and XXII-A — Courts are authorized to compel the attendance of all the witnesses as soon as charge is denied by accused — It is from this stage or words that the Court can bind down the Prosecutor and Officer Incharge of the Police Station to keep available all the witnesses for recording their statements — The trial shall continue till the entire evidence is recorded, unless reasonable circumstances duly recorded otherwise warrant — Chap. XX and XXII-A deal with the Production of Prosecution evidence before the trial Court — Hence, these override all other provisions State through Advocate General v. Hakam Deen & 15 others 2005 SCR 374 (K)
In criminal cases the remand must be avoided and this Court should itself settle the legal or factual controversy. Javaid Iqbal & 2 others v. The State 2006 SCR 339 (B)
Chapter X — Public nuisances — The law clearly stipulates every step which the Magistrate has to take when an information is placed before him — The spirit of the Chapter is to be carried into effect and every word of the law is to be given meaning as provided by law itself — The Magistrate adopted cursory procedure in dismissing the complaint without following any provision of law — It appears that Magistrate has dealt with the case in administrative manner instead of legal procedure — Held: The order of the Magistrate has been rightly set aside by the Courts below. Fazal Hussain v. Muhammad Ashraf & 2 others 2006 SCR 163 (A)
Chapter XX of Cr.P.C. relates to the trial of cases by Magistrates, while Chapter XXII-A of the Code relates to the trial before the High Court and the Court of Sessions — As the trial was conducted by District Criminal Court which is substituted for the Court of Sessions Judge, the procedure visualized by Chap. XXII-A would, therefore, apply — The provisions of both the Chapters, are almost identical. Hakam Deen v. State and 15 others 2006 SCR 120 (A)
The law makers have very wisely incorporated the above provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure intending to ensure just, fair and safe trial of the accused — The purpose is that the accused should know before hand after perusal of documents charges levelled against him and evidence in support of those charges besides the conduct and antecedents of the witnesses who are to be examined against him. A gap of at least seven days enables the Court as well to study the case and satisfy itself as to whether any case for trial is made out or not — It is real not the mechanical process which is endeavoured to be achieved by law, to save time of Courts and accused from being vexed and dragged in a case in which there is no ground for proceeding. Hakam Deen v. State and 15 others 2006 SCR 120 (G)
A case cannot be transferred from one Court to another simply for convenience of one of the parties — Court has to consider the convenience of both the parties. Amir Zaman & 2 others v. The State & another 2007 SCR 357 (B)
It is also well established principle of law that a party cannot seek transfer of case as a matter of routine or at its wishes — The case can only be transferred when it is found that a party has reasonable apprehension in his mind that he shall not get fair trial at a particular place. Amir Zaman & 2 others v. The State & another 2007 SCR 357 (C)
It is the duty of the party seeking transfer of case to establish that it has reasonable apprehension in mind that it will not get fair and impartial inquiry or trial. Amir Zaman & 2 others v. The State & another 2007 SCR 357 (D)
If it appears to the Court from the circumstances placed before it that fair and impartial inquiry or trial is not possible in a subordinate Court then it may order transfer of the case — It is of paramount importance that the parties arrayed before the Court should have confidence in the impartiality — It is one of the important duties of the High Court/Shariat Court to create and maintain such a confidence — A litigant will not be forced to undergo trial by a Judge of Magistrate about whom he has a reasonable apprehension that he is prejudiced against him — Reasonable apprehension is to be decided in each case with reference to the incident and the surrounding circumstances. Amir Zaman & 2 others v. The State & another 2007 SCR 357 (E)
A person who does not appear before the Court and has absconded cannot be exempted from personal appearance.Aziz Bi v. Fazal Hussain & another 2007 SCR 141 (B)
Principle of law — Criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for the default of appearance — Criminal appeal has to be decided on merits.Ch. Jameel Qayyum v. State 2008 SCR 108 (A)
Respondent No.1 filed a writ of habeas corpus in High Court — Respondent No.1 is not a relative of detenue and falls in the definition of a stranger — Held: A stranger has no right to file application. Shaukat v. Muhammad Sharafat Khan & another 2008 SCR 574 (E) 1972 SCMR 398, 1975 SCMR 163, 1982 P.Cr.L.J. 1247, PLD 1982 AJK 2 and 1988 P.Cr.L.J. 148 rel.
The High Court has power to order for production of a person illegally detained against his /her will under private or public custody — A condition has been imposed and High Court has to consider before issuing production order that “whenever the High Court thinks fit” — It means that it is only the satisfaction of High Court before it issues the order for production of detenue — No other condition is required for issuing the process — The High Court has to keep in mind the facts of any particular case and has to determine the maintainability of petition — while determining the maintainability of petition the bona fides of the petitioner and relationship with alleged detenue has to be considered — The underlying principle of writ of habeas corpus is to ensure the production and well being of a person brought before the Court and enforce a legal right vested in it — The High Court shall be vigilant that petition shall not be used as shield to protect a person against whom a criminal case has been registered. Shaukat v. M. Sharafat Khan 2008 SCR 574 (F)
S. 56-A r/w Ss. 10/11, 16/18, ZHA & 109, A.P.C. — Abduction for purpose of committing zina — Right of marriage — Impugned F.I.R was quashed by Shariat Court — Validity — An affidavit had been filed by female respondent in Shariat Court in which she had submitted that she was a virgin and unmarried — Her parents wanted to marry her to some other person, that is why she left her home with her own will — Neither she had been abducted by any body nor she was married to any person before Nikah with co-respondent — Only statements recorded by police had been placed on record which could not be relied in presence of affidavit filed by said respondent — Argument that Sharait Court had committed illegality while recording impugned order on basis of compromise deed, was having no substance — All the criminal proceedings initiated by complainant were only in the name of ‘‘Ghariat’’ at the same were withdrawn by them through compromise — Respondents, being sui juris, had lawfully married with each other and in those circumstances offence was alleged in F.I.R. was not made out; conviction of accused was not possible and continuance of investigation under circumstances against respondents may amount to unnecessary harassment, therefore, said F.I.R. was rightly quashed by Shariat Court — Respondents were adult sane and according to Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights, they could not be deprived from the right of marriage — Criminal revision was dismissed by Supreme Court. QUASHMENT OF F.I.R. — (Lawful marriage) [Respondents being sui juris had lawfully married with each other and in these circumstances F.I.R. was rightly quashed].State through Advocate-General, AJK, Muzf”abad and others v. Safeer Khan and another 2013 SCR 42
The Shariat Court is fully empowered to summon the accused whenever their personal appearance is required. Muhammad Rafique v. Shahzad Hussain & 8 others 2016 SCR 1124 (B)