State vs JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SECTION-30 Ss — 2026 PLD 465 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.

State VS JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SECTION-30 Ss. 63 & 167---Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act (XL of 1958), Ss. 4 & 5---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.162---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Physical remand---Duty Magistrate lacking jurisdiction to try the case---Duty to forward accused to court of competent jurisdiction, not to discharge---"FK", who was acting as Munshi (assistant) of a Revenue Patwari, was caught red-handed on during a raid conducted by the Judicial Magistrate in possession of tainted currency of Rs. 25,000/- received from the complainant "SK"---First Information Report was registered under S.5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with S.161, P.P.C.; S.162, P.P.C. was subsequently added---Physical remand was sought for fourteen days; the Duty/Judicial Magistrate Section-30 granted one day's remand on 07.08.2019, one day on 08.08.2019, and on 09.08.2019 refused the third remand application and discharged the accused on the ground that he was not a public servant and the offence did not fall within the purview of the Anti-Corruption Establishment---State challenged the order of discharge by writ petition under Art.199 of the Constitution---Whether a Duty Magistrate who has no jurisdiction to try an offence or to send it for trial is competent, upon disagreeing to grant physical remand, to discharge the accused from the case, or whether he is bound under S.167, Cr.P.C. to forward the accused to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction?---Held: A Magistrate before whom an accused is produced under S.167, Cr.P.C. for physical remand may authorise detention in custody for a period not exceeding fifteen days in the whole, whether or not he has jurisdiction to try the case---If, however, he has no jurisdiction to try the case or send it for trial and considers further detention unnecessary, the mandate of S.167, Cr.P.C. requires him to forward the accused to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction; he is not competent to discharge the accused from the case----An order of discharge at the remand stage is always an administrative/executive order to which no irrevocability attaches---In the present case, the offence under S.162, P.P.C. was exclusively triable by a Special Judge Anti-Corruption under the Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1958; the Duty Magistrate Section-30 had no jurisdiction to try the offence or send it for trial and was therefore not competent to discharge the accused---By refusing remand and discharging the accused, the investigation was throttled in its infancy against the spirit of the law and the express provisions of the Code---Impugned order dated 09.08.2019 was set aside, and matter was remanded to Magistrate Section-30 for fresh decision on the physical remand application in accordance with law---Petition was allowed.

State vs JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SECTION-30 Ss — 2026 PLD 465 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2026 PLD