MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs THE STATE and 3 others
This criminal appeal challenges an order passed by a Magistrate in Lahore, wherein the trial court, upon receiving a supplementary challan, discharged and acquitted three accused persons (Ali Ahmad, Liaqat Ali, and Abdul Rehman) in a case registered under sections 365, 337-A(ii), 337-L(ii), 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a trial court, after taking cognizance of an offence and framing a charge, can rely on a supplementary challan to discharge or acquit accused persons. The Lahore High Court held that while a court may accept a supplementary challan as additional evidence after taking cognizance, it cannot utilize such a report as the sole basis for the discharge or acquittal of the accused. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order, ruling that it lacked legal sanctity and sustainability. The case was remanded to the trial court for a fresh decision after hearing both parties, establishing the principle that a supplementary challan cannot serve as the foundation for acquittal once the trial process has commenced.
- Can a trial court rely on a supplementary challan to discharge or acquit an accused after cognizance has been taken and charges framed?
- Is a supplementary challan admissible as additional evidence after the court has taken cognizance of a criminal case?
- Section 365, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-A(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 337-L(ii), Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 148, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 149, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. ' MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJUM-UZ-ZAMAN, J.--- Appellant is the complainant of case F.I.R. No,234 of 1999, dated 7-7-1999 under sections 365/337-A(ii)/337-L(ii)/148/149, P.P.C. Registered at Police Station, Kahna, District Lahore. Through this appeal order, dated 14-9-2000 passed by Magistrate Section 30 Model Town, Lahore has been challenged. This order reveals that learned trial Court on receipt of supplementary challan had discharged/acquitted Ali Ahmad, Liaqat Ali and Abdul Rehman while agreeing with the police findings.
2. ' Record of this case reveals that after the submission of challan in the above said case, charge was framed on 16-9-1999 and supplementary challan was submitted on 14-9-2000. Thereafter the trial Court on the basis of supplementary challan while agreeing with the police findings passed the impugned order. It is well-settled that after taking the cognizance, Court can take supplementary challan as an additional evidence but the same cannot be made a base for discharge or acquittal of accused. The impugned order has no sanctity and is not sustainable. In this view of the matter, the impugned order, dated 14-9-2000 is set aside and the case stands remanded to the trial Court to re-decide the matter. The matter shall be decided after hearing both the parties keeping in view the factual aspect of the case. With this observation, this appeal is allowed and stands disposed of. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.