The Law Office of Faheem Ahmed Ch. & Associates

The Law Office of Faheem Ahmed Ch. & Associates Advocates & Legal Consultants Providing legal advice. Generating solutions and strategies. Contract negotiation
Negotiating settlements.

Advocates High Court and Federal Shariat Court: Practicing in Civil Courts, Criminal Courts Family Courts, Appellate and original jurisdiction work in District & Sessions Court and High Court. Conducted more than 1000 cases as counsel in various civil, criminal, family, rent, constitutional, consumer protection, medical negligence etc cases, at various forums including, High Court and District Cou

rts, Consumer court, Labor Court, Services Tribunal, Banking courts. Includes legal counseling/advocacy, opinions, writing & reply of legal notices, negotiations in family cases, preparation of legal documents such as affidavits, power of attorney, Multiple type of Conveyancing including contracts, lease agreements, sale deeds, lease deeds etc, Memo of association, articles of association, registration of deeds and firms, partnership agreements, companies, NGO etc, preparation/drafting of suits, plaints, appeals, written reply, various applications, gathering evidences, presenting documentary evidence, leading evidence in-chief, cross examination, arguments etc. Highly skilled in reviewing documentary evidence, analysis of claims and defences across sectors, industries and jurisdictions with particular focus on drafting and advocacy skills pertaining to family laws, rent laws, Intellectual Property, civil law, contract issues, child custody cases etc

Specialties
Problem Solving
Legal Opinions
Analyzing facts and identifying issues. Legal Drafting
Civil Litigation Practice
Research in civil trials pertaining to property, tenancy and family matters
Assessing the merits of a case and identifying The Dispute resolution alternatives.

*COURT TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS* :*The Law Office of Faheem Ahmed Chaudhary Asc*ADP :- Assistant Director of Prosecution....
26/11/2024

*COURT TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS* :
*The Law Office of Faheem Ahmed Chaudhary Asc*

ADP :- Assistant Director of Prosecution.
APP :- Assistant Public Prosecutor.
CC No :- Calendar Case Number.
CJM :- Chief Judicial Magistrate.
DDP :- Deputy Director of Prosecution.
DJ :- District Judge.
DW :- Defense Witness.
FTC :- Fast Track Court.
JM :- Judicial Magistrate.
MC :- Magisterial Clerk.
NBW :- Non Bailable Warrant.
PP :- Public Prosecutor.
PRC No. :- Preliminary Registration Case Number.
PT :- Pending Trial.
PTW :- Prisoner Transfer Warrant.
PW :- Prosecution Witness.
SC No. :- Sessions Case Number.
STC No :- Summary Trial Case Number.
PTC :- Pending Trial Case.
CC- Calender Case
STC- Summery Trial Case
PRC- Priliminary Register Case
SC- Sessions Case
JC- Journial Case
ARC :- Accident Register Copy.
CD :- Case Diary.
Cr.No. :- Crime Number.
FIR :- First Information Report.
FP :- Finger Print.
FR :- Final Report.
IO :- Investigation Officer.
IP :- In Patient.
LCD :- Last Case Diary.
MO :- Modus Offender.
MO :- Medical Officer.
PM :- Post Mortem.
PMC :- Post Mortem Certificate.
PNR :- Prisoner Nominal Roll.(Prisoners Record ).
RCS :- Referred Charge Sheet.
R/w :- Read with.
Sec. :- Section.
SOC :- Scene of Crime.
UI :- Under Investigation.
U/s :- Under Section.
WC :- Wound Certificate.
AD :- Action Dropped.
UN :- Undetected.
MF :- Mistake of Fact.
ML :- Mistake of Law.
CSR :- Community Service Register.

GCR :- Grave Crime Report or General Conviction Register.
GD :- General Diary.
LLI :- Loose Leaf Index.
OP :- Out Post / Out Patient.
PSR :- Prisoners Search Register.
SHO :- Station House Officer.
SHR :- Station House Report.
BC :- Bad Character.
DC :- Dossier Criminal.
HO :- Habitual Offender.
HS :- History Sheet.
KD :- Known Depredator.
LFO :- Local First Offender.
LKD :- Local Known Depredator.
NLFO :- Non Local First Offender.
NLKD :- Non Local Known Depredator.
L & O :- Law and Order.
OD :- Other Duty.
PSO :- Police Standing Order / Personnel Security Officer.
ID :- Illicit Distillation.
IMFL :- Indian Made Foreign Liquor.
IMFS :- Indian Made Foreign Sprit.
GSE :- Good Service Entry.
MSE :- Meritorious Service

Unnatural conduct of complainant and eye-witness.----------------------------2024 SCMR 1773Unnatural conduct of compla...
03/11/2024

Unnatural conduct of complainant and eye-witness.
----------------------------

2024 SCMR 1773
Unnatural conduct of complainant and eye-witness---Admittedly, the appellant (accused) was alone, whereas, the complainant, witness and the deceased were three in numbers---Taking the words of the complainant that he and the eye-witness were 20 paces away from the appellant, they could have easily reached the appellant and overpowered him within few seconds, but no attempt was made by them to avert the attack---It was hard to believe that life of the brother and uncle of complainant and eye-witness respectively, was in danger, but they did not react immediately---Had the complainant and the eye-witness been present at the time and place of the occurrence, the appellant could have been apprehended before causing any dagger injuries to the deceased---(naeem)Despite the fact that the complainant and his companion were 20 paces away from the appellant, they did not make any attempt to catch hold of him, even after he caused dagger injuries to the deceased---Prosecution had failed to establish its case against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt---

2024 SCMR 1608
Unnatural conduct of complainant and alleged eye-witness---Presence of complainant and alleged eye-witness at the place of occurrence doubtful---It was not acceptable to a prudent mind that when the son of the complainant received bullet (naeem)injuries, he and the eye-witness being his nephew did not take the injured to a hospital, in order to save his life---Instead, the complainant opted to go to the police station for registration of an FIR, leaving behind two witnesses---Record reflected that the dead body remained lying at the place of the occurrence for about two and half hours---According to the doctor the dead body was brought to the hospital by the police officials and there was no evidence to prove that the complainant and a witness went along the dead body to the hospital, which was why, the dead body was identified by others, who were not produced as witnesses---Manner in which the complainant and alleged eye-witness narrated the story did not appear to be trustworthy---(naeem)In the facts and circumstances of the case, their presence at the place of occurrence at the relevant time was not established, therefore, the prosecution case against the appellant was doubtful---

2024 SCMR 1224
Unnatural conduct of witnesses---According to the version of prosecution witnesses they along with the deceased came out in the street from a Haveli, belonging to the deceased, and were proceeding towards horse stable of deceased when they were fired upon in the street by the petitioner (accused)---(naeem)Site map produced by the prosecution at the trial did not mention the point/place where the horse stable of deceased was situated nor it mentioned the distance between the Haveli of deceased and his stable---Site map did not mention about the Haveli of deceased---In the site map Haveli of person "MA" had been shown in occupation of deceased---Neither the prosecution witnesses had stated that deceased was residing in Haveli of "MA" nor the prosecution had produced "MA" at the trial to prove that deceased was residing in his Haveli and if so, in what capacity---(naeem)From the testimony of prosecution witnesses and contents of the post mortem regarding time of death of deceased persons, it was clear that the first deceased remained lying injured at the place of occurrence for half an hour and the second deceased remained lying injured at the place of occurrence for one hour but prosecution witnesses, claiming to be the eye-witnesses, made no efforts to immediately shift both the injured to hospital---Had prosecution witnesses been present (naeem)at the place of occurrence with the deceased, being close relatives of one of the deceased, they would have immediately taken both the injured to the hospital to save their lives--- Unnatural conduct of prosecution witnesses created serious doubts about their presence at the place of occurrence with the deceased---Prosecution witnesses had not explained as to how they escaped firearm injuries despite indiscriminate firing by five accused persons from a close range---Said aspect also created doubt about presence of the alleged witnesses at the place of occurrence---It was not believable that by killing a person in presence of his close relatives, the petitioner (accused) would not attempt to cause any injury to the prosecution witnesses leaving them for giving evidence against him---Prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the petitioner of committing murder of the (naeem)deceased beyond reasonable doubt---Petition was converted into appeal and allowed, and petitioner was acquitted of the charge under section 302(b), P.P.C.


2017 SCMR 596
Unnatural conduct of accused party in deliberately leaving the complainant and eye-witnesses alive---According to the FIR, all the accused persons encircled the complainant, the prosecution witnesses and the two deceased thus, the apparent object was that none should escape alive---Complainant being father of the two deceased and the head of the family was supposed to be the prime target as he had vigorously pursued a case against the accused party (naeem)and also deposed against them as an eye-witness---Site-plan positions would show that the complainant and the prosecution witnesses were at the mercy of the assailants but no threat was extended to them---Such unbelievable courtesy extended by the accused persons to the complainant and prosecution witnesses, knowing well that they would depose against them created serious doubts in the prosecution case---Such behavior on the part of the accused persons ran counter to natural human conduct and the behavior explained in the provisions of Art. 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984---Accused persons were acquitted of(naeem) all the charges levelled against them in circumstances.


2017 SCMR 486
Unnatural conduct of witnesses---Interested and related witnesses---Doubt in recovery of weapon---Father and mother of deceased alleged that their deceased son went outside the house with the accused and co-accused; that they followed their son and saw the accused and co-accused persons murder their son with a dagger---No convincing and plausible reason had been advanced as to why the parents followed their deceased son and what was the object behind it---Conduct of (naeem)both said alleged eye-witnesses ran counter to normal human behaviour---Two independent witnesses who were close friends of the deceased and were on frequent visiting terms were not produced at the trial as witnesses in such way, the best evidence, independent in nature, was withheld from the court, which was sufficient to discard the evidence of the deceased's parents, who were interested and related witnesses---Site plan, which was never denied by the prosecution, showed that the distance between the deceased and the accused was twenty feet---Question was as to how in a dark night, the witnesses were able to identify the accused and the dagger in his hand from such a distance---Autopsy report/medical evidence did not support the time of death of deceased as claimed by the prosecution---Motive set up was not only weak and feeble but also not established because the daughter of the complainant in whose presence the alleged quarrel with accused party took place prior to the murder, was not produced at trial---No evidence has been brought on record to establish that the shop, wherefrom dagger belonging to accused was recovered, was in an exclusive possession and ownership of the accused---Conviction and sentence of accused for murder was set aside in circumstances---Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2015 SCMR 315 Unnatural conduct of witnesses in not saving the deceased at the time of occurrence---Presumption---Unseen incident---Motive not established---Effect---Accused was alleged to have stabbed the deceased repeatedly with a scissors which resulted in the latter's death---Alleged motive for the occurrence was that deceased, who was a head teacher, (naeem)had transferred the accused (teacher) to another school---Deceased had numerous stab wounds on his body, numbering nineteen in all---Accused was armed only with a scissors, and causing many wounds to the deceased with a scissors must have consumed reasonable amount of time---However, the three witnesses, who were all related to the deceased, remained silent spectators, and did not react or show any response when the accused was allegedly stabbing the deceased---Intervention by a close relative in such a situation was very natural but in the present case witnesses neither did anything nor attempted to chase the accused to apprehend him---Presence of witnesses at the crime spot had become highly doubtful due to their Unnatural conduct , therefore no explicit reliance could be placed on their testimony---Presumption was that deceased was done to death when no one was present to rescue him---Motive for the occurrence was not established in any manner through any documentary evidence or even secondary evidence of reliable nature---Even otherwise deceased, who was a head teacher, had no authority to transfer the accused-teacher to another school---Such circumstances rendered the motive for the occurrence entirely feeble, artificial and not appealing to a prudent mind---Since the ocular account was worthy of being discarded, the recovery of scissors from accused, which otherwise was doubtful, and other pieces of evidence would not be sufficient to carry conviction on a capital charge---Appeal was allowed accordingly and accused was acquitted of the charge by extending him benefit of doubt.

*THE LAW OFFICE⚖️* Section 22-A and 22-B1- AMENDMENT IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE 1898A- ...
03/11/2024

*THE LAW OFFICE⚖️*

Section 22-A and 22-B

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.C###I) 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

*THE LAW OFFICE ⚖️*

Address

2nd Floor, Lawyers Executive Block, Grand Trunk Road (Jhelum Road), Above Habib Bank Limited
Rawalpindi
46000

Opening Hours

Monday 09:00 - 19:00
Tuesday 09:00 - 19:00
Wednesday 09:00 - 19:00
Thursday 09:00 - 19:00
Friday 09:00 - 13:00
Saturday 09:00 - 19:00

Telephone

+923125118823

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when The Law Office of Faheem Ahmed Ch. & Associates posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to The Law Office of Faheem Ahmed Ch. & Associates:

Shortcuts

Share

Category