Pakistan Case Law
1993 SCMR 1931

AURANGZEB vs THE STATE

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1993 SCMR 1931
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Criminal Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 251-L of 1992
Date1993-06-22
Judge(s)Saad Saood Jan and Muhammad Rafiq Tarar
Authored byMuhammad Rafiq Tarar
ResultLeave granted
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question concerns the competency of a complaint filed under section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code pursuant to the order of a District Magistrate, where the initial application containing the alleged false information was submitted to the Divisional Commissioner, specifically in light of the provisions of section 195(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court granted leave to examine whether such a complaint is legally competent under the cited statutory provisions.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether a complaint under section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code made under the order of the District Magistrate is competent when the application containing the alleged false information was made to the Divisional Commissioner?
  • Does section 195(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure bar a complaint under section 182 of the Pakistan Penal Code in the absence of a complaint by the public servant concerned or their superior?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 182, Pakistan Penal Code
  • Section 195(a), Code of Criminal Procedure
leave to appealfalse informationcriminal complaintjurisdictionstatutory interpretation

ORDER

1. ' MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.--- Leave to appeal is granted to consider whether in view of the provisions of section 195 (a) of the Cr.P.C. a complaint under section 182 of the P.P.C. Made under the order of the District Magistrate would be competent when the application containing alleged false information forming basis of the said complaint under section 182 of the P.P.C. Was made to the Divisional Commissioner.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.