Saif Ali vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 1971 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

Saif Ali VS State Ss. 63, 167& 561-a---accused discharged by Magistrate on the ground of deficient evidence---Legality---In the case in hand the accused was apprehended and was produced before the Magistrate for obtaining his physical remand, but while refusing the request of the police for physical remand of accused, he was discharged from the case---Perusal of record revealed that there was an ongoing litigation between the parties regarding partition of land and at present a review petition was pending adjudication before Member (Judicial-III) Board of Revenue, in which (petitioner) was appointed as Superdar on 24.10.2024 who was assigned the duties to supervise the standing crops with further direction to report to the Tehsildar in case of any mischief caused to it---Subsequently, the petitioner registered a criminal case on 13.01.2025 at police station with specific allegation that on 25.12.2024 he was appointed Superdar for the land---However, respondent No. 4, along with 05 unknown persons, committed theft of rice crop weighing 260 maunds valuing Rs.13,00,000/- and on the basis of which police arrested the accused in accordance with law and produced him before the Judicial Magistrate S.30 on 23.01.2025 with a request for obtaining his 14 days physical remand---Instead of taking into consideration the allegations which were not leveled by any private person rather by the Superdar, the Judicial Magistrate S.30 discharged the accused---Role of respondent No.4 could only be determined after proper investigation in accordance with law---No doubt it was the discretion of the Magistrate concerned to pass order under S. 63,Cr.P.C., to discharge an accused, however, the discretion must be exercised by the concerned Magistrate justly and fairly---In the instant case on the first day of arrest, respondent No. 4 had been discharged by the Magistrate despite the fact that statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under S. 161, Cr.P.C., were available on record---Judicial Magistrate, instead of properly considering the available evidence, hastily discharged the accused despite allegations of theft of rice crops valuing Rs. 13,00,000---Given the unique facts and circumstances of the case, High Court believed that the Judicial Magistrate did not allow the Investigating Officer sufficient opportunity to complete the investigation in accordance with the law---Constitutional petition was allowedby setting aside impugned order and the request of the Investigating Officer for physical remand of the accused/respondent No.4 would be deemed to be pending before the Magistrate, who shall pass appropriate order keeping in view the observations made in the present order.

Saif Ali vs State Ss — 2025 PCrLJ 1971 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PCRLJ