MAIM ALI vs THE STATE and anothers
This criminal revision petition challenges the order of the trial court summoning the petitioners, whose names were placed in Column No. 2 of the police report challan, to face trial under sections 302/34/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without first recording evidence. The core legal question is whether a trial court is competent to summon an accused whose name appears in Column No. 2 of the challan without initially recording evidence to establish a prima facie case. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that when a court takes cognizance of an offence on a police report, it takes cognizance of the entire case rather than just specific persons, and is legally empowered to summon accused persons listed in Column No. 2 based on the available material in the case file without recording prior evidence. The key principle laid down is that taking cognizance of a police report allows the trial court to summon accused persons from Column No. 2 directly upon reviewing the case file materials.
- Whether a trial court can summon an accused whose name is placed in Column No. 2 of the challan without first recording evidence?
- Does taking cognizance of an offence on a police report by a court extend to the whole case rather than merely the persons charged?
- Is recording evidence mandatory before issuing process against an accused listed in Column No. 2 of a police report?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 109, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
' A case F.I.R. No.82 of 1998, dated 28-4-1998 under sections 302/34/109, P.P.C., on the complaint of Master Allah Wassaya had been registered against the three accused persons sons of the petitioner at Police Station Pacca Laaran on the allegation of murder of Ghamoon Khan nephew of the complainant.
2. After investigation of the case, challan has been sent to the Court and the petitioner Mauj Ali son of Jumma Khan and Mst. Siddiqan wife of Gaman had been summoned by the trial Court after taking cognizance of the case vide its order dated 24-7-1999. The said order has been challenged by the petitioners through the instant criminal revision contending that the Court was not competent to summon the petitioners to face the trial of the case without recording some evidence. He relies on the case of S. Akhtar Sher v. The State and another 1991 M LD 1977 Quetta.
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The names of the petitioners were placed in Column No.2 of the challan and the trial Court having found material on the file of the case against the petitioners, summoned them to face the trial. It is settled principle of law that when the Court taking cognizance of the offence on a police report that takes the cognizance of the whole case and not merely of a particular person charged in the report as an offender. The case against fir: petitioner has been sent to the Court and their names were placed in Column No.2 of the challan. The trial Court can summon the accused placed in Column No.2 of the challan to face the trial and there is no legal bar whatsoever that at first instan -e evider7e should be recorded to ascertain as to whether prima facie case is made out against them. A reference in this context can be made to the case of Safdar Ali v. Zafar Iqbal and others 2002 SCM R 63.
4. Therefore, in following the dictum laid down by the apex Court, I am constrained to observe that the Court while issuing process against the petitioners committed no illegality and the order passed by the lower Court/Additional Sessions Judge calls for no interference which is unexceptionable. Resultantly, this revision petition having no force, is dismissed.