Mian HAROON RIAZ LUCKY vs State Ss — 2021 SCMR 56 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Mian HAROON RIAZ LUCKY VS State Ss. 4, 5(2), 23 & 31---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 462-C & Chapt. XVII-A---Theft of natural gas by commercial consumer---Registration of FIR under S. 462-C, P.P.C.---Plea of accused-petitioners that at time of alleged offence, the Gas (Theft, Control and Recovery) Act, 2016 ['the 2016 Act'] was in force, therefore, registration of FIR under S. 462-C, P.P.C. without following the provisions of 2016 Act was an abuse of process of law---Held, that analysis of changes brought about by the 2016 Act clearly illustrated that the new regime under exclusive jurisdiction solely dealt with the cases of gas with no change in the generic character of the offences earlier enlisted under the Chapter XVII-A of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 except that it provided a new mechanism for assumption of exclusive jurisdiction by the Gas Utility Court to try offences as a Court of Session under Cr.P.C., however, it required a complaint, in writing by a person authorized in such behalf by a Gas Utility Company---Offences listed in Chapt. XVII-A, P.P.C. remained cognizable as well as non-bailable with only immunity extended to a domestic consumer, otherwise liable to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C.---Only concession under the new regime i.e. the 2016 Act was available to a domestic consumer---However, the present case involved a commercial consumer---Restriction placed by S. 23 of the 2016 Act that search in suspected premises may be carried out by an officer or employee of a gas utility company not below BPS-17, was merely directory in nature, to be followed having regard to the exigencies of a particular situation, as far as practicable; non-compliance whereof, could not be interpreted to have vitiated the process of law---Furthermore there were a wide variety of offences both under the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 as well as under various special laws that required prior sanction of an Authority/person for prosecution for the purposes of assumption of cognizance by the Trial Court, which for purposes of present case was S. 5(2) of the 2016 Act; such requirements did not stand as an impediment to the registration of First Information Report (FIR), arrest of an offender or commencement of investigation thereof as the clog of sanction transiently related to the steps preparatory thereto by the authority designated under the statute---Petition for leave to appeal seeking cancellation of FIR was dismissed and leave was refused.

Mian HAROON RIAZ LUCKY vs State Ss — 2021 SCMR 56 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2021 SCMR