Rana MUHAMMAD AKRAM KHAN vs SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI-CORRUPTION
This constitutional petition challenges the legality of the trial court order directing the registration of a case upon a private complaint for offences under sections 409, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, without recording the statement of the complainant. The core legal question was whether the failure of the trial court to record the complainant's statement vitiates the proceedings or renders the order unsustainable. The Lahore High Court held that the omission by the trial court to record the statement of the complainant upon receiving a private complaint constitutes an irregularity that is curable under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the trial court is competent to send the matter for the registration of a criminal case based on inquiry reports. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the validity of the impugned order.
- Whether the failure of a trial court to record the statement of a complainant upon receiving a private complaint renders the subsequent order illegal?
- Is the omission to record a complainant's statement a curable irregularity under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a trial court direct the registration of a criminal case based on an inquiry report without examining the complainant?
- Whether an order directing the registration of a case under sections 409, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is sustainable when procedural irregularities are present?
- Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 537, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
MIAN MUHAMMAD NAJUM-UZ-ZAMAN, J.---Through this constitutional petition the petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 14-3-2005 whereby the learned trial Court (Special Judge Anti-Corruption Faisalabad) while disposing of the private complaint filed by respondent No,2 for the offence under sections 409/468/471, P.P.C. Has directed Faisalabad for registration of the case and to proceed further in accordance with law.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that learned trial Court while entertaining the complaint was duty bound to record the statement of the complainant before proceeding further but this exercise was never taken up by the trial Court and thus the impugned order is not sustainable.
3. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents while relying upon the case of Badshah and others v. The State (PLD 1958 Dacca 598) and Shamim v. The State (1966 SC 178) submits that once a private complaint is dismissed for non-prosecution and on entertaining second complaint for the same offence the trial Court can proceed with the matter without recording the statement of the complainant and the said irregularity is curable and times in the circumstances, there is no question of setting aside the impugned order.
4. After hearing the, parties and perusing the record I have observed that the learned trial Court while entertaining the private complaint not the matter inquired into the Anti-Corruption Establishment and thereafter upon the request of the complainant had directed the concerned department to proceed further in accordance with the report of the Inquiry Officer for registration of the case and to inquire into the matter as required under the law. The crux of the case-law cited by the counsel for the respondent is that non-recording of the statement of the complainant by the Court on receiving the private complaint is an irregularity and curable under section 537, Cr.P.C.
It is further held that the trial Court is competent to send the case for the registration of criminal case. In the light of settled proposition of law I see no illegality in the impugned order. This petition having no merits stands dismissed. Office is directed to send back the record which was received from the trial Court.
Cited by 3 cases
- Fahid Ullah & Three Others vs State 2014-PHC
- FAHID ULLAH KHAN and 3 others vs Met. 'DIL PAZIR JAN and another 2015 PLJ Peshawar 25
- FAHID ULLAH KHAN and 3 others vs Mst. DIL PAZIR JAN and another 2015 PLJ Peshawar 25, 2015 P Cr. L J 873