MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA and anothers vs THE STATE
This criminal petition arises out of F.I.R. No. 401 dated 26-8-1995 registered under Section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for violation of Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioners were convicted and fined by the Illaqa Magistrate upon their confessional statements, and their subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question concerns the legality of recording confessional statements while the accused are in police custody without adhering to mandatory procedural safeguards under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Lahore High Court accepted the petition and set aside the lower court judgments, holding that the failure of the trial Magistrate to put mandatory cautionary questions regarding police custody and to issue the requisite certificate vitiates the confession. The key principle laid down is that non-compliance with the procedural safeguards mandated for recording confessions under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 renders the conviction unsustainable.
- Does the failure of a trial magistrate to issue a certificate and put cautionary questions render a confessional statement inadmissible?
- Can a conviction based on a confessional statement recorded in violation of Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be sustained?
- Section 188, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 144, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 164, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
' Today, learned counsel for the petitioner is not present. He has sent a written request for adjournment being busy before the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. Short point is involved in this case, so I would like to hear learned State counsel and then to proceed with the case.
2. Facts of the case are that F.I.R. No,401 dated 26-8-1995 under section 188 P.P.C. Was registered against the petitioners on the statement of Abdul Rauf A.S.I. Police Station Civil Line, Sialkot on the allegation that both the petitioners were violated section 144, Cr.P.C. Which is punishable with section 188, Cr.P.C. As they both were driving motorcycle which was prohibited on that date thereafter, both the petitioners were produced before the learned Illaqa Magistrate, who recorded their statements on 27-8-1999 and fined them Rs,100 each in default 15 days' S.I. They filed an appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which was dismissed.
3. Learned State counsel submits that learned trial Court' has violated the provision of section 164', C4.P.C. And moreover, petitioners were HI police custody when their confessional statements were recorded. He does not support the judgments of both the Courts below.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In the instant case, the provision of sectiot 164, Cr.P.C. Were violated, as no question were put to the petitioners before recording their confessional statements to the effect that for how many days they remained in police custody and that if they made confession, the same can be used against them and even in this regard no certificate was also given by the learned Trial Magistrate.
5. After hearing the learned State counsel and going through the record, this petition is accepted.
Both the impugned orders passed by the learned trial Magistrate and learned Additional Sessions Judge are set aside.