RIAZ AHMAD vs MUHAMMAD SAEED
This criminal revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, whereby a private complaint under sections 420, 468, 471, and 318 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was returned for presentation before a proper forum by invoking Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether provisions of the Civil Procedure Code regarding the return of plaints can be applied in criminal proceedings. The Lahore High Court held that the concept of return of a complaint is unknown to criminal law and procedure, and the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be applied in a criminal matter. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the Special Judge was directed to rehear arguments on the inquiry report and pass a fresh order in accordance with sections 203 and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Can the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the return of a plaint be applied in a criminal matter?
- Does a Special Judge Anti-Corruption have the power to return a private criminal complaint for presentation before another forum?
- What is the proper procedure for a Special Judge upon receiving an inquiry report under section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
- Section 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 468, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 471, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 318, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 5, Prevention of Corruption Act 1947
- Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Order VII Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 203, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 204, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
' This criminal revision is directed against the order, dated 7-10-2000 passed by the learned' Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Faisalabad whereby he had returned to the petitioner the private complaint under sections 420/468/471/318, P.P.0 . And section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 with the direction for presentation before the proper forum.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner Nailed a private complaint against Muhammad Saeed Ahmad, Deputy Director, F.D.A. And four others. After recording the statement of the petitioner/complainant, the learned Special Judge sent the complaint to the learned Magistrate 1st Class for inquiry, under section 202, Cr.P.C. On the receipt of the report, the learned. Special Judge, passed the impugned order on 7-10-2000. Vide the said order he agreed with the inquiry report that the allegations against respondents Nos.1 to 4 were not proved on record. But concerning respondent No,5 (a private person) he observed that the said Court did not possess requisite jurisdiction to proceed against him and thus ordered, therefore, the complaint is returned under Order VII, rule 10, C.P.C. To be presented before proper forum.
3. Arguments have been heard.. It is very surprising that the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Faisalabad has passed an order under Order VII, rule 10, C.P.C. In a criminal matter and has particularly referred to the provisions of Order VII, rule 10, C.P.C. In that respect. The concept of return of complaint is unknown to criminal law and procedure. The provisions of Civil Procedure Code cannot be applied in a criminal matter. Probably the learned Special Judge did not apply his mind to the fact that he was dealing with a criminal matter and not with a civil suit. The order dated 7-10-2000 is clearly erroneous and suffers from a material irregularity and as such the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.
4. In this view of the matter, the revision petition is accept and the impugned order, dated 7-10- 2000 is set aside and the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Faisalabad is directed to rehear the arguments on the inquiry' report and to pass a fresh order keeping in view the provisions of sections 203 and 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Revision .