2020 PCrLJN 35

SHAKEEL AHMED Versus State

Citation2020 PCrLJN 35

CourtSindh High Court

Judge(s)Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui

ORDER

1. FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J.--- Through the instant Criminal Revision Application, the applicant has impugned the Criminal Reference No.1098 dated 11.08.2016 made by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, as well as order dated 25.08.2016, whereby certain guidelines/directions were given to the concerned Judicial Magistrate in respect of cognizance under sections 389, 211, P.P.C.

2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant/ complainant that at the time of handling bail application, learned 3rd Additional Session Judge, Hyderabad came to conclusion that some of the sections mentioned in the FIR are not charge worthy, as such, the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad has made a reference to the learned Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and the learned Sessions Judge directed the concerned Magistrate to consider the issue whether cognizance is required to be taken regarding those sections or not. He further submits that the reference as well as direction of the learned Sessions Judge, is contrary to law and learned Magistrate is required to take or not to take cognizance after going through the material placed before him by the police in the shape of final report.

3. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the reference as well as order of learned Sessions Judge is quite clear and from perusal of the same it appears that the charge cannot be framed in respect of certain sections mentioned in FIR. However, he frankly admits that the cognizance is purely the responsibility of Judicial Magistrate and at the time of taking cognizance, he has to consider the material placed before him by the police.

4. On the other hand, learned A.P.G submits that in the instant case, the Judicial Magistrate may be allowed to consider the material placed before him by the police; and to act as per law in the light of such material.

5. I have heard the arguments advanced and after meticulous perusal and scanning of the record placed before me, I am of the view that unless the cognizance is not taken, the Sessions Judge is not required to give any opinion regarding framing of charge at the time of deciding a bail application. Under the law, the cognizance is the sole responsibility of Magistrate who at the time of taking cognizance has to consider the material placed by the police before him in the shape of final report and at the time of taking cognizance, he may consult the police file but no other material beyond the same. In these circumstances, this Criminal Revision Application is disposed of with direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned to act strict in accordance with law at the time of dealing with final report submitted before him without considering any exterior material and being influenced from the observation of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in her reference and the order of learned Sessions Judge.Criminal Revision Application Stands disposed of in above terms.

6. SA/S-47/Sindh Order accordingly.