Subordinate police official should cause any harassment to the petitioner or any one else.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, CIRCUIT COURT LARKANA

Constt. Petition No.  203 of 2008.

1.                  For orders on office objection (A).
2.                  For Katcha Peshi.

29.04.2008.

                        In this case notice was issued to the S.P Investigation Dadu who is respondent No. 2 in this case.  He has filed statement, wherein he has denied all the allegations made against him in the petition and in concluding paragraph of his statement he has mentioned as under: -

                        “It is submitted that the undersigned/ respondent No. 2 ensures that investigation will be get carried out fairly, impartially and honestly and also sincere efforts be made to apprehend the accused.  However this office has no objection if investigation be made through any senior officer. Moreover this office ensures that no harassment be caused to the petitioner and no action be taken beyond the law and any action if taken will be strictly in accordance with the law.  The undersigned/ respondent No. 2 further ensure to act strictly in accordance with the law. In view of the above submission it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to dismiss the petition filed with malafide intentions, in the interest of justice.”

                        Similarly, the D.P.O Dadu, who is respondent No.3 in this case has stated that he will take care that no subordinate police official should cause any harassment to the petitioner or any one else.

                        SIO/ ASI Syed Gambal Shah who is respondent No. 1, has filed a long statement, the relevant paragraph is reproduced hereunder:  -

                        “That since the investigation of the case is under process and during which the statements of the witnesses under section161 Cr.P.C. have been recorded, the efforts for arresting the required accused are being taken sincerely and even the petitioner has never been harassed by the answering respondent. It is further submitted that the case is under investigation and as son as the investigation is completed, the charge under section 173 Cr.P.C. would be submitted before the competent court.”

                        Inspite of all this assurance given by the police officers the learned counsel for the petitioner insists upon transfer of the investigation. The grievance of the learned counsel is that Investigating Officer has not recorded statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. of his witnesses, namely, Iqbal and Muhammad Mithal. The I.O is directed to record the statements of these two witnesses within three days and submit the challan in court within one week. Petition stands disposed of.

Important Cases Decided by the Supreme Court

MIR MUHAMMAD IDRIS AND OTHERS VERSUS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRTY OF FINANCE AND OTHERS

 (P L D 2011 SUPREME COURT 213)

In the instant Constitution Petition, the petitioners had challenged the validity of the reappointment of one Syed Ali Raza, respondent No 3, as President of the National Bank of Pakistan (NBP) for the fifth time. The petitioners alleged that Respondent No.3 was initially appointed as President for a period of three years w.e.f 1-7-2000. Thereafter, he was reappointed w.e.f 1-7-2003, for yet another period of three years w.e.f. 1-7-2006; and for a further period of one year w.e.f. 1-7-2009; following which he was again appointed for another year w.e-f. 1-7-2010 vide notification dated 10-4-2010. The petitioners alleged that Respondent No. 3 was holding the said lucrative post illegally and unlawfully.
The pivotal question falling for determination by the Supreme Court was whether section 11(3)(d) of the Banks (Nationalization) Act 1974, as amended by the Banks (Nationalization), (Amendment) Act, 1997, relating to the appointment of Chairman, President and members of the NBP Board, could have been amended by the Finance Act, 2007 [Money Bill] passed in terms of Articles 73 and 75 of the Constitution.
In the judgment authored by the Honourable Chief Justice of Pakistan, it was observed that as per Article 73(2) of the Constitution a Bill or anendment was to be deemed a Money Bill if it contained provisions dealing with all or any of the matters enumerated in clauses (a) to (g) of Paragraph 2 of the said Article. That the subject matter of amendment of section 11(3)(d) of the Act of 1974 was not covered by the term ‘Money Bill’. Therefore, the reappointment of Chairman, the President and other members of the Board of NBP did not fall within the ambit of clauses (a) to (g) of Art 73(2). That the amendment in question could not have been introduced in clause (d) of subsection (3) of section 11 of the Act of 1974 by way of Finance Act, 2007, as it did not fulfil the requirement envisaged by Article 70 of the Constitution, i.e. of approval by two houses of parliament.


The Supreme Court relied upon the case of Sindh High Court Bar Association versus Federation of Pakistan(PLD 2009 SC 879), wherein it was held that the amendment in the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1997, effected by the Finance Act, 2008, was unconstitutional and illegal. Resultantly, certain Judges of the Supreme Court were made to relinquish office. Based on the same analogy, the Supreme Court observed that if the appointments of Judges were effected on account of a similar defect in legislation, the appointment of Respondent No.3, who, too, was appointed under an unconstitutional and illegal amendment could be protected. Therefore, the amendment made in section 11(3)(d) of the Act of 1974 by the Finance Act, 2007, was declared unconstitutional and illegal, and Respondent No.3 was directed to relinquish his office as President NBP with immediate effect.

decided under Guardian & Wards Act

GUARDIAN & WARDS ACT, 1895
The question of jurisdiction, whether to be decided under Guardian & Wards Act or West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV Of 1964) and Rules of 1965 thereto.

PLD 2012 S.C 66

2001 SCMR 2000 distinguished

Sec.12 &25 read with sec.491 Cr.P.C

Sec.12 &25 read with sec.491 Cr.P.C
-    Jurisdiction of criminal court u/s 491 Cr.P.C. is not ousted on account of provisions of section 12, 25 of Guardian & Wards Act. Criminal court have jurisdiction where custody has been illegally removed from lawful custody.
PLD 1995 SC 633
1988 SCMR 1891
PLD 1969 SC 187
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Powered by Blogger.

Case Law Search