Penalty for misconduct by police officers case laws

 Penalty for certain types of misconduct by police officers

Citation Name:   PLJ  2019  Cr.C   635
Appelant Side:    MUHAMMAD AMEEN etc.
V    e    r    s    u    s
Opponent Side:   STATE etc.
Judge Name:       MUHAMMAD WAHEED KHAN
Other Law Journal References:    

police order, 2002 (10 of 2002)-- ----art. 155(2)--criminal procedure code, (v of 1898), ss. 435/439--criminal revision--defective investigation--legal question--private complaint--sub-article (2) of article 155 of police order, 2002 it is apparent and clear that prosecution can be initiated against police officers on basis of defective investigation, on a report in writing by an officer authorized in this behalf under law--provision of police order, 2002 and esteemed judgment rendered by high court--private complaint filed by respondent is not maintainable against petitioners as they are police officers--however, under law there are two venues available to respondent; firstly, if trial court comes to conclusion that said investigating officer has interrogated matter with mala fide intention or with some ulterior motive during course of investigation, then it can order for prosecution under article 155 of police order, 2002--secondly, respondent may move an application to high ups of police department by availing remedy available under law--complaint filed against petitioners was not maintainable--revision petition was accepted. [p. 638 & 639] a & b nlr 2008 criminal 42, ref.

Citation Name:   PLJ  2016  Supreme Court   393
Appelant Side:    HAIDER ALI and another
V    e    r    s    u    s
Opponent Side:   DPO CHAKWAL and others
Judge Name:       JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, C.J., DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN AND QAZI FAEZ ISA
Other Law Journal References:    

criminal procedure code, 1898 (v of 1898)-- ----ss. 22-a(6) & 154--police order, 2002, art. 155-orders of justices of peace--firs were not registered--actions against defaulting sho--justice of peace cannot issue coercive process for compliance of his orders--if police has no discretion in registering an fir, action must be taken against those who abuse that provision of law and use police as an instrument for their designs. [p. 397] b & c

Citation Name:   PLJ  2016  Cr.C   540
Appelant Side:    SHER MUHAMMAD
V    e    r    s    u    s
Opponent Side:   STATE etc.
Judge Name:       SYED MUHAMMAD KAZIM RAZA SHAMSI
Other Law Journal References:    

pakistan penal code, 1860 (xlv of 1860)-- ----ss. 344, 337-f(i), 337-a(i)--police order, 2002, art. 155--sentence--detenue was kept in police lock-up--physically tortured--guilt of charge--presumption of truth--illegal confinement in police station--report of bailiff--medical evidence--validity--prosecution was not able to point out any malice on part of petitioner for keeping alleged detenue in illegal custody and torturing him--prosecution had failed to prove charge against petitioner beyond any shadow of doubt--thus, instant petition warranted acceptance. [p. 542] a

Citation Name:   PLJ  2016  Lahore High Court   387
Appelant Side:    HABIB BANK LIMITED
V    e    r    s    u    s
Opponent Side:   CAPITAL CITY POLICE OFFICER LAHORE etc.-
Judge Name:       MRS. ERUM SAJAD GULL
Other Law Journal References:    

offences in respect of banks (special courts) ordinance, 1996-- ----s. 5(8)--financial institutions (recovery of finances) ordinance, 2001, s. 7--police order, 2002, s. 155(c)--criminal procedure code, (v of 1898), ss. 22-a & 22-b--matter relating to banks--misappropriated major portion of hypothecated stock--criminal case was not registered--order of justice of peace--validity--special banking laws have been enforced to deal with all matter pertaining to banks--if an accepted rule that special law will override general law--if a procedure is not prescribed in special law then general law will be followed--banks have a choice to first avail remedy under general law or special law--all matters relating to bank have to be dealt by banking courts-- bank had no authority or justification to file an application under sections 22-a & 22-b of, cr.p.c. and ex-officio justice of peace had no authority/jurisdiction to entertain application of bank--petition was dismissed. [pp. 389 & 391] a & b

Citation Name:   PLJ  2016  Lahore High Court   92
Appelant Side:    ABDUL HAMEED ASLAM
V    e    r    s    u    s
Opponent Side:   ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, CHISHTIAN and 2 others
Judge Name:       SYED SHAHBAZ ALI RIZVI AND FARRUKH GULZAR AWAN
Other Law Journal References:    

constitution of pakistan, 1973-- ----art. 199--police order, 2002, s. 155(c)--constitutional petition--non-compliance of order of court--non-cognizable offence--not competent to issue direction for registration of fir--order did not reflect anything--validity--subsequent order sheets of trial court reflected that pws were produced and their statements stand recorded though they had not been cross-examined yet by defence as accused of case was reluctant to engage his private counsel to cross-examine witnesses--impugned order passed by a.s.j. is harsh and against principles of administration of justice. [p. 93] a

Citation Name:   PLJ  2011  Lahore High Court   861
Appelant Side:    MUHAMMAD SHAFI
V    e    r    s    u    s
Opponent Side:   SHO etc.
Judge Name:       Mehmood Maqbool Bajwa
Other Law Journal References:    

constitution of pakistan, 1973-- ----art. 199--police order, 2002, art. 155(c)--pakistan penal code, (xlv of 1860), s. 496-a--constitutional petition--quashing of fir--offence under art. 155-c is not cognizable offence--no action was warranted u/s. 154, cr.p.c.--held: offence allegedly committed by petitioner was non-cognizable, therefore, no action was required under art. 154, cr.p.c.--f.i.r. was quashed.

Citation Name:   PLJ  2010  Lahore High Court   456
Appelant Side:    SHAHID HUSSAIN and another
V    e    r    s    u    s
Opponent Side:   ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, TAUNSA SHARIF DISTT. D.G. KHAN and others
Judge Name:       Abdul Sattar Goraya
Other Law Journal References:    

----s. 155(c)(d)--constitution of pakistan, 1973--art. 199--constitutional petition--non-cognizable offences--entries in roznamcha waqiati can be made and investigating officer cannot investigate the case until there is permission from magistrate--complaint was pending in the court of addl. sessions judge--warrants of arrest against witnesses were issued--sho was directed to execute the warrants through sub-inspector--case of conscious omission on the part of the sho--validity--in respect of non-cognizable offences, only entries in roznamcha waqiate can be made and investigating officer cannot investigate the case until there is permission from the magistrate--held: offence u/s. 155(c) & (d) of police order, 2002, are non-cognizable and addl. sessions judge has fallen in error in passing the impugned order--petition was accepted.

Citation Name:   PLJ  2009  Lahore High Court   786
Appelant Side:    ASHIQ ALI and others
V    e    r    s    u    s
Opponent Side:   DIG OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others
Judge Name:       Zafar Iqbal Chaudhry
Other Law Journal References:    

----arts. 155(2), 171 & 172--criminal procedure code, (v of 1898), s. 156(2)--quashing of fir--petitioner being i.o. did not investigate a murder case honestly and impartially--held: provisions of art. 155(2) of the police order, 2002 the dsp was not authorized person to recommend for registration of the cases against the petitioners--under arts. 171 and 172 of the police order, 2002, the acts of the police officers done in good faith have been protected--investigation conducted by the police officer cannot be called in-question in the subsequent proceedings on the ground that he was not competent to do the same--firs have been registered only on the opinion of the dsp (legal), who had no authority in such regard when the matter was already sub-judice before the court of competent jurisdiction which if fully empowered to recommend to the higher authorities in police hierarchy for any action against the police officers/ios, if any lapses are found on their part during the trial--firs were quashed.

Citation Name:   PLJ  2009  Lahore High Court   293
Appelant Side:    MUHAMMAD MUJAHID IQBAL
V    e    r    s    u    s
Opponent Side:   ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, RAJANPUR and 10 others
Judge Name:       Kazim Ali Malik
Other Law Journal References:    

----s. 155(c)(d)--criminal procedure code, (v of 1898), ss. 22-a & 22-b--constitution of pakistan, 1973, art. 199--constitutional petition--ex-officio justice of peace--direction to sho to register a criminal case--order was not complied with by sho--contempt of court proceeding--challenge to--contention--role of court--respondent attempted to get registered a case against police as counter blast to the cases already stand registered against him should have not been lightly ignored by ex-officio justice of peace--validity--ex-officio justice of peace wrongly assumed the role of court while dealing with an application u/ss. 22-a and 22-b, cr.p.c.--ex-officio justice of peace was not supposed to believe the allegation as gospel truth without application of legal mind--held: being creation of law the ex-officio justice of peace was under legal obligation to pass an order with application of legal mind--respondent attempted to get registered a case against the police as counter blast to the cases already stand registered against him should have not been lightly ignored by ex-officio justice of peace--accused involved in heinous and serious offences are allowed to prosecute investigators, mechanically without application of legal mind then trend can crode the system--order passed by ex-officio justice of peace had allegedly been violated by the police--further held: ex-officio justice of the peace passed administrative orders and there was no occasion and justification to initiate contempt of court proceeding or to take any penal action against the police official who allegedly violated ministerial direction or administrative order--impugned orders were illegal, without jurisdiction and with no legal effect--petitions were allowed.

Citation Name:   PLJ  2008  Cr.C   234
Appelant Side:    Haji MUHAMMAD QASIM and another
V    e    r    s    u    s
Opponent Side:   MUHAMMAD JAHANGIR KHAN and another
Judge Name:       Kh. Muhammad Sharif
Other Law Journal References:    2007 YLR 3209

----s. 155(2)--malafide intention--declaration of innocent accused had destroyed the case of complainant--case was registered against four persons qua the murder--alleged made ineffective firing and raised lalkara--complainant filed a private complaint against accused--bar of--validity--preliminar evidence, fir and other documents produced before high court--no injury was attributed to the accused who were declared innocent--deceased received only one fire-arm injury which was attributed to absconder--held: if after recording of evidence in murder case, the trial court comes to conclusion that the accused had declared innocent with malafide intention or with some ulterior motive, then it can order for prosecution u/s. 155 of the police order--further held: s. 155(2) of police order, is a bar on filing a private complainant--petition was allowed.

Citation Name:   PLJ  2006  Lahore High Court   1345
Appelant Side:    MASOOD AHMAD JAVED
V    e    r    s    u    s
Opponent Side:   STATE and 5 others
Judge Name:       Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq
Other Law Journal References:    2006 MLD 855

----art. 155(1), (2)--pakistan penal code (xlv of 1860), ss. 302, 324, 148 & 149--criminal procedure code (v of 1898), s. 21-a--constitution of pakistan, 1973, art. 199--art. 155(2) will be applied at the time of reporting the matter to the court and not at the investigation stage--validity--written report by an authorised officer was required for prosecution of offences mentioned in art. 155(1)--held: matter is at investigation stage and the proper stage for consideration of the implications of the art. 155(2) of police order will be when the matter is reported to the court for commencement of the prosecution.

Citation Name:   PLJ  2006  Lahore High Court   1257
Appelant Side:    SAKHAWAT HUSSAIN SHAH
V    e    r    s    u    s
Opponent Side:   STATE and 3 others
Judge Name:       Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi
Other Law Journal References:    2006 PCr.LJ 1564

----art. 155(2)--constitution of pakistan, 1973, art. 199--"prosecution"--prosecution in context of art. 155(2) means institution and continuance of a criminal proceedings after framing of formal charge before competent court and pursuing the proceedings until final judgment of acquittal or conviction passed--held: merely registration of an fir cannot be construed as "prosecution" in context of art. 155(2) of the police order, 2002--petition dismissed.

Citation Name:   PLJ  2006  Lahore High Court   1257
Appelant Side:    SAKHAWAT HUSSAIN SHAH
V    e    r    s    u    s
Opponent Side:   STATE and 3 others
Judge Name:       Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi
Other Law Journal References:    2006 PCr.LJ 1564

----arts. 13 & 199--criminal procedure code, (v of 1898) s. 561-a--police order, 2002, art. 155(c)--double punishment--protection or enforcement of a right of punishment of wrong--corpus juris secundum the term "prosecution"--the word "prosecution" appears to have been used in art. 199 of the constitution--marginal heading indicated art. 13 of constitution of pakistan, 1973 is a protection against double punishment, which tends to show that it is only where prosecution has finally concluded and ended either in acquittal or conviction that fresh prosecution for the same offence would be barred.

Citation Name:   PLJ  2006  Lahore High Court   1257
Appelant Side:    SAKHAWAT HUSSAIN SHAH
V    e    r    s    u    s
Opponent Side:   STATE and 3 others
Judge Name:       Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi
Other Law Journal References:    2006 PCr.LJ 1564

----arts. 13 & 199--criminal procedure code, (v of 1898) s. 561-a--police order, 2002, art. 155(c)--double punishment--protection or enforcement of a right of punishment of wrong--corpus juris secundum the term "prosecution"--the word "prosecution" appears to have been used in art. 199 of the constitution--marginal heading indicated art. 13 of constitution of pakistan, 1973 is a protection against double punishment, which tends to show that it is only where prosecution has finally concluded and ended either in acquittal or conviction that fresh prosecution for the same offence would be barred.

Citation Name:   PLJ  2005  Karachi High Court   181
Appelant Side:    NASEEM AKHTAR KHAN
V    e    r    s    u    s
Opponent Side:   DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
Judge Name:       Sabihuddin Ahmed and Amir Hani Muslim
Other Law Journal References:    PLD 2005 KAR 285

----arts. 35 & 155(2)--constitution of pakistan 1973, art. 199--criminal procedure code (v of 1898), s. 22-a & second sched.--initiation of prosecution--police order, 2002, only required prosecution to be initiated upon a written report, but did not say that no arrest could take place without warrant--offence being punishable with imprisonment up to three years, it would be deemed to be cognizable under section schedule to cr.p.c.--petition dismissed.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

PLJ 2019 Lahore 132

PLJ 2019 Lahore 132 [Multan Bench Multan] Present: Muzamil Akhtar Shabir, J. BAQIR HAMEED and another--Petitioners versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary and 4 others--Respondents W.P. No. 12396 of 2017, heard on 20.6.2018. Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 199--Constitutional Petition--Recruitment of educators--Clearance of NTS and interview--Petitioners were selected--Withdrawal of appointment letters--Non-issuance of show-cause notice--Recruitment policy 2016-17--Equivalence of Master Degress--Principle of locus poenitenciae--Question of whether LLB degree would be treated equal to Graduation or Master--Determination--In advertisement for appointment, LL.B is one of academic qualifications required for purpose of appointment, which is mentioned alongwith qualification of Master Degree and degrees equivalent to Master and Bachelor are also included in prescribed qualification--Higher Education Commission vide its letter dated July 27th 2017, has declared Bachelor of la...
Read more
 Citation Name : 2008 MLD 1018 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Side Appellant : Sardar MUHAMMAD ASIF Side Opponent : State S. 514--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419, 420 , 468, 471 & 109---Forfeiture of bond---Applicant stood surety for accused, memo of surety produced by applicant was accepted by the court below and after execution of bond, custody of accused was handed over to him with direction to produce accused on each and every date of hearing in court--Surety was duty bound to cause attendance of accused in court on each and every date of hearing and failure of accused to attend the court would react on the surety---If despite of notice served on surety by the court, he failed to produce accused in court, court would be within its right and power to forfeit surety bond under S.514, Cr.P.C. and further impose fine thereby directing surety to deposit full quantum of surety bond---Accused had frequently jumped bail with intention that reduced quantum of the surety bond would be dep...
Read more
 Citation Name : 2008 YLR 732 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Side Appellant : SHAHID Side Opponent : State S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.419 & 420 ---bail , grant of---Offences with which accused had been charged, did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S.497, Cr. P. C. ---Accused was behind the bars since his arrest on 2-12-2006---bail should not be withheld as a matter of punishment---Accused was admitted to bail , in circumstances. Citation Name : 2008 YLR 286 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD AFZAL Side Opponent : State S. 497---Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (10 of 1984), Sched. ---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.408/420 /468/471/380-bail , refused of---Offences with which the accused were charged were mentioned in the Schedule attached with the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, provisions of which had the overriding effect, by virtue of its section 5 making the offences non-bail able---Accused were...
Read more