AMMAD YOUSAF vs State Ss — 2024 PLD 273 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.

AMMAD YOUSAF VS State Ss. 121-a, 124, 153-a, 196 & 505---Constitution of Pakistan, arts. 15, 16, 17, 19 & 19a---Prosecution for offences against the State---Politically motivated FIRs against politicians, political workers, media persons, and human rights activists---Observations recorded by the Supreme Court regarding adverse consequences of such politically motivated FIRs and how the same deprive citizens from their fundamental rights provided. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 273 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case AMMAD YOUSAF VS State When a law stipulates that some thing has to be done in a prescribed manner, it must be done in that manner and should not be done otherwise. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 273 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case AMMAD YOUSAF VS State Ss. 120-B, 121-a, 124, 131, 153, 153-a, 196, 505, 506, 201, 109 & 34---Prosecution for offences against the State---Procedure provided under section 196, P.P.C not followed---Effect---Criminal proceedings, quashing of---after permission was obtained from the Secretary, Ministry of Interior, the Magistrate registered an FIR under sections 120-B, 121-a, 124, 131, 153, 153-a, 505, 506, 201, 109 & 34, P.P.C against the main accused, who appeared live on a news channel and allegedly made some remarks against the armed forces---Petitioner was subsequently implicated in the case during the investigation, on the pretext that as Director of the news channel, he conspired with the main accused for the commission of the alleged offences---Legality---Record reflects that vide a Notification, the Federal Government had empowered the Secretary to file complaints on its behalf, against a person(s) for the offences mentioned in section 196, P.P.C---admittedly, the Secretary did not file any complaint against the petitioner, rather, the FIR was registered against the main accused by the Magistrate after getting permission from the Secretary---Secretary being a delegate himself, had no jurisdiction to redelegate the authority to anyone else---In the present case, the FIR was registered with permission of the Secretary without considering the provisions of section 196, P.P.C that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the offences mentioned in section 196, P.P.C---Neither an FIR can be registered nor can a permission from the Secretary justify the act of the Magistrate---as contemplated in section 196, P.P.C, no Court shall take cognizance of the offences of the P.P.C., mentioned therein, unless upon a complaint filed by the authorities concerned, therefore, the Trial Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of sections 121-a, 124, 153-a & 505 of the P.P.C., on the basis of the FIR, hence, the judicial proceedings initiated by it to the extent of such offences were coram non judice---admittedly, the petitioner was not nominated in the FIR---During the investigation, the Investigating Officer reached a conclusion that the petitioner is a conspirator along with the main accused, therefore, subsequently through a supplementary statement he was involved in this case---Even if the alleged views orally expressed by the main accused during the live telecast are believed to be true and in violation of any reasonable restriction imposed by law, a question arises as to how the petitioner, can be held responsible for the act of the main accused, merely on the ground that he being a member of the administration of the broadcaster, is equally responsible---Manner in which the petitioner was proceeded against, amounts to inciting fear not only amongst the entire administration of the broadcaster, but will also have an impact upon rest of the print and electronic media, which will certainly obstruct their constitutional right---On the basis of the material available on the record, no case was made out against the petitioner---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed, and the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, pursuant to the FIR were quashed to his extent, and he was acquitted from the case. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 273 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case AMMAD YOUSAF VS State Ss. 249-a & 265-K---Power of Trial Court to acquit the accused at any stage of the proceedings---Scope and principles relating to sections 249-a & 265-K, Cr.P.C stated. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 273 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case AMMAD YOUSAF VS State S. 265-D---Charge, framing of---Trial Court, duty of---Object and purpose of section 265-D, Cr.P.C. stated. Citation Name: 2024 PLD 273 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case AMMAD YOUSAF VS State S. 196---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Chapts. XVI & XVII---Prosecution for offences against the State---Procedure for prosecuting a person for offences mentioned in section 196 of Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 stated.

AMMAD YOUSAF vs State Ss — 2024 PLD 273 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLD