Pakistan Case LawNAEEM AHMAD Versus Rana MUHAMAMD MAJEED and others
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had quashed criminal proceedings against the respondent, a police inspector. The petitioner, the complainant, had alleged offences under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Investigating officers had previously recommended the cancellation of the case against the respondent due to a lack of evidence regarding the demand or acceptance of a bribe. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its inherent powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to quash proceedings at an initial stage where no evidence of the alleged offence existed. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the High Court rightly quashed the proceedings as the prosecution failed to establish any evidence of the respondent demanding or accepting a bribe. The Court affirmed that continuing such proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of the court, emphasizing that trial courts must independently appraise evidence without being prejudiced by the quashment of proceedings against co-accused parties.
- Can the High Court quash criminal proceedings at an initial stage under its inherent powers when no evidence of the alleged offence is made out?
- Does the quashment of proceedings against one accused person necessarily prejudice the trial of co-accused persons?
- Is a trial judge required to independently appraise evidence regardless of the status of proceedings against other co-accused?
ORDER
MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.--Naeem Ahmad petitioner, the complainant, lodged F.I.R. No,112/1990, on 15-4-1990, pursuant to which case under section 161/162/342, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as The Act, 1947) was registered against respondent No,1 and another at Police Station, Lohari Gate, Multan.
The two Investigating Officers of the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police found Rana Muhammad Majeed respondent Inspector Police not involved in the matter and recommended cancellation of the case. The Superintendent Police as well as Inspector-General of Police also agreed with the finding of the aforementioned Investigating Officers and submitted a report under section 173, Cr.P.C. On 5-8-1992, for the discharge of the respondent from the case on the ground that there was no evidence against him that he had ever demanded or accepted bribe from the complainant.
The respondent and Muhammad Jameel co-accused moved Criminal Miscellaneous No,161 of 1992, under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. For quashment of the proceedings and the learned Judge in the High Court vide impugned order dated 2-2-1994, quashed the proceedings in the aforesaid case qua respondent No,1 holding as under:-
"Admittedly the power of High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. Is neither alternative nor additional; and is to be invoked only in the interest of justice for redress of grievance having no other procedure, but the proceedings even can be quashed at initial stage without recording of evidence when no case is made out. In this case, there is some evidence against Muhammad Jameel and others under section 161, P.P.C. And 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, but no offence against Rana Muhammad Majeed is made out, under the above-noted provisions of law when he has not accepted, obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain any gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person.
' For the foregoing reasons and in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner No,1, that charge-under section 161/162, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, brought against him would not succeed and the same also being supported by the learned Assistant Advocate-General that the State has no case against him, so the proceedings qua him being a result of mala fide are quashed."
Naeem Ahmad petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the aforesaid order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench.
In support of this petition learned counsel contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Judge in the Lahore High Court amounts to stifling the prosecution at an initial stage not warranted under the law. It was also submitted that the impugned order would jeopardize the proceedings in the trial Court so far as the case against Muhammad Jamil co-accused is concerned.
We have considered the contentions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and find no merit in them. The prosecution has failed to bring on the record evidence to show that the respondent No, 1 had either demanded or accepted bribe from the complainant, no charge therefore, under section 161/162, P.P.C. Read with section 5(2) of the Act, 1947, was made out. The High Court rightly quashed the proceedings against the respondent- continuance whereof would have been sheer abuse of the process of the Court. As far as, the second contention is concerned suffice it to observe that the learned trial Judge has to apply his independent mind by appraising evidence on the record before passing final order.
In the result, we find no merit in this petition. It is accordingly ismissed and .
Judges on this bench
- Saad Saood Jan2,559 judgments
- Manzoor Hussain Sial807 judgments