BAWA MIAN QAZI vs THE STATE and 4 others
This criminal revision application challenges an order passed by the Special Court (Offences in Banks), Karachi, which accepted a police report filed under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the closure of a case. The core legal question was whether a trial court is required to provide independent reasoning when accepting a police report for case closure, rather than merely expressing satisfaction with the investigating officer's opinion. The High Court held that the impugned order was legally deficient because it failed to assign any reasons for concurring with the police report, despite the existence of witness statements and bank records. The Court emphasized that when a statute authorizes an authority to pass an order, it is incumbent upon that authority to provide reasons for its decision, as mandated by Section 24A of the General Clauses Act 1897. Consequently, the High Court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the trial court with directions to examine the record and pass a reasoned order.
- Is a trial court required to provide independent reasons when accepting a police report for the closure of a case under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does Section 24A of the General Clauses Act 1897 mandate that a judicial authority must assign reasons for its orders?
- Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 24A, General Clauses Act 1897
- Section 173(3), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' RAHMAT HUSSAIN JAFFERI, J.-The present application is directed against the order dated 10-3-1999 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Special Court (Offences in Banks) Sindh, Karachi by which the report of the F.I.A. Authorities filed under section.173, Cr.P.C. In which a prayer was made for closing the case was accepted by the trial Court.
2. We have heard the parties' Advocates. D.A.-G. Is absent, yithout going into the merits of the case it is pointed out that under section 24A of General Clauses Act every authority or officer is required to assign reasons for passing an order when a statute authorizes him to pass any order or issue any direction. We have perused the impugned order and found that after giving the details of the case and opinion of the Investigating Officer the learned trial Judge observed as under:- "I am satisfied that the report of F.I.A. For closure of the case under section 173, Cr.P.C. Is justified and, therefore, accept the same."
3. Apart from the above paragraph no reason whatsoever has been assigned by the learned Judge to agree with the report of the police. Large number of witnesses were examined. Bank record was produced, therefore, it was incumbent upon learned Judge to have examined such statements, record and give some reasons concurring.
4. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for examining the statements of witnesses, record and pass appropriate order as deemed fit.
5. The application is allowed to the above extent. The respondents are on bail. They may continue to remain on bail till the trial Court passes an order within the meaning of section 173(3), Cr.P.C. The application is allowed in the above terras.