Citation Name: 2023 PLD 291 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD USMAN GHANI vs State Ss

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

Citation Name: 2023 PLD 291 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD USMAN GHANI VS State Ss. 265-D, 242 & 249---Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act (III of 2006), S.9(7)---Issuance of process against accused---Summoning of accused by Trial Court to face trial despite their names being placed in column No. 2 of the Challan---Validity---Section 265-D, Cr.P.C. required the Court to peruse the police report or, as the case may be, the complaint, and all other documents and statements filed by the prosecution before framing of charge---Court was bound to give it due consideration on the touch stone of evidential test and public interest test---If after considering the police report, case review/result of assessment, statements of witnesses and any other document, Court was of the view that sufficient material was available to frame the charge, it would proceed accordingly, but if not, then in converse would be obliged to discharge the accused---Discharge of accused was a legal requirement that could be resorted to under S. 265-D of Cr.P.C.---Court when opted to summon any accused in the process at early or subsequent stage should also attend to such consideration as set out above because mere mentioning of the name in the police report or deposing it by a witness was no ground to issue process in blindfold---However, if an accused had been summoned to face the process, even then before framing of charge, material must be examined in the light of criteria highlighted above which is the command and mandate of law---Discharged accused could be summoned at any subsequent stage if any evidence worth appreciating was made available against him---In a magisterial trial where a provision like 265-D, Cr.P.C. was not available yet there was no prohibition in S. 242, Cr.P.C. as to not consider the material before framing of charge---Situation was now clearer in the light of provision of Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006 ('CPS Act'), that required the court to give due consideration to the result of assessment submitted by the prosecutor---CPS Act being special law shall prevail over the general law---If the prosecutor recommends, the case as not worthy of prosecution or discharges the accused due to deficient evidence but the Court has a different observation and expected that evidence could be made available, it could frame the charge but otherwise court still had two options for the time being, either to discharge the accused or stay the proceedings under S. 249 of Cr.P.C.---Revision petition was dismissed.

Citation Name: 2023 PLD 291 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD USMAN GHANI vs State Ss — 2023 PLD 291 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PLD