Maher Muhammad Altaf Traggar vs State and 3 others
This criminal revision petition was filed to impugn the order dated 09.02.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge acting as Ex-officio Justice of Peace, whereby the SHO was directed to record the version of Respondent No. 3 for registration of a case. The core legal question revolved around the sustainability of the direction for registration of a criminal case regarding the alleged misappropriation of a licensed pistol, in light of subsequent developments. The Lahore High Court held that since Respondent No. 3 had made a confessional statement and was convicted and sentenced with a fine in the related case, the allegations against the petitioner stood falsified and Respondent No. 3 could no longer claim misappropriation. Consequently, the criminal revision petition was allowed and the impugned order passed by the Ex-officio Justice of Peace was set aside, establishing that subsequent judicial confessions and convictions in related proceedings nullify the evidentiary basis for coercive police registration orders.
- Whether an order passed by an Ex-officio Justice of Peace directing the recording of a criminal version can be set aside when the complainant subsequently confesses guilt in a related proceeding?
- Does a conviction and sentence upon a confessional statement falsify prior allegations of weapon misappropriation made against a petitioner?
- Can a criminal revision petition be allowed when subsequent judicial events render the original grievance of the respondent untenable?
- Section 22-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 22-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 13(2)(a), Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965
ORDER
Through this criminal revision petition, the petitioner has impugned the orders dated 09.02.2016, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Shujabad, whereby SHO Police Station Raja Ram was directed to record version of the petitioner (Respondent No. 3) provided cognizable of fence is made out.
2. Precisely the facts necessary for disposal of is in hand are that Muhammad Jameel filed an application under Sections 22-A/22-B, Cr.P.C, for registration of case against the petitioner and others before the learned Ex-of ficio Justice of Peace, upon which order dated 09.02.2016 was passed wherein learn ed Ex-of ficio Justice of Peace, issued direction to the SHO Police Station Raja Ram to record version of said Muhamad Jameel provided cognizable offence is made out. The said order was challenged by the present petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 5501 of 2016, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 05.05.2016. Again, the petitioner has challenged the same order by means of instant criminal revision petition wherein the operation of the impugned order was suspended vide order dated 09.05.2016. The matter remained pending till today .
3. Arguments heard and record perused.
4. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with proforma respondent, misappropriated licensed pistol .30 bore ' belonging to Respondent No 3 Muhammad Jameel. Respondent No. 3 further alleged that a criminal case vide FIR No. 98/2015, offence under Section 13(2)(a) of the Pakistan Arms Ordinanc e XX of 1965, Police Station Raja Ram, Shujabad was registered against him illegally . He applied for securing the pistol on Superdari before the learned illaqa Magistrate, on perusal of report so filed by the polite, it transpired that his pistol has been misappropriated and another pistol has been planted against him. Thereupon Muha mmad Jameel, Respondent No. 3 herein moved to the Court of Justice of Peace for registration of case and got passed the impugned order dated 09.02.2016.
5. Today , learned counsel for the petitioner has presented a copy of order dated 15.03.2017, passed by learned Magistrate Section 30, Shujabad, disclosing that Muhammad Jameel, Respondent No. 3, upon his confessional statement has been convicted and sentenced with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. Copy be placed on record. Therefore, he states that in view of above position, when the said Respondent No. 3 Muhammad Jameel himself confessed his guilt, the allegation against the petitioner automatically stands falsified.
6. Keeping in view the above position, this petition appears to have borne fruit as Respondent No. 3 Muhammad Jameel after having been fined Rs. 1,000/- in the above-said case, is not in a position to allege that his pistol has been misappropriated rather he had confessed his guilt regarding the pistol recovered.
7. For what has been discussed above, the instant criminal revision petition is allowed and order dated 09.2.2016, passed by learned Ex-of ficio Justice of Peace, Shujabad is set aside.