Punjab Criminal Prosecution Department Pakpatan

PLD 2023 Peshawar 130

Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984.
Art . 150 --- Declaration of a witness as hostile --- Powers of the Trial Court --- Scope --- Trial Court dismissed an application moved by the petitioner/complainant for declaring one of prosecution witnesses a hostile witness --- Contention of the petitioner/complainant was that the replies given by the said prosecution witness (police official) to a few questions , having been put to him during his cross - examination , would favour the defence --- Ileld , that the witness could be declared as a hostile witness by the Court under Art . 150 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order , 1984 (the Order 1984) , however , the same (Article) had conferred discretion upon the Trial Court in said regard --- Trial Court was to permit the person who had called a witness to put any question to him (witness) , which actually was to be put in cross-examination by the adverse party --- Only controversy , in the present case , was that at what stage of the proceedings said mandate of the Trial Court was to be attracted --- Record revealed that the witness - in - question recorded his examination-in-chief prima facie supporting the version of the prosecution and thereafter the defense started cross-examination of the said witness ; and it was in the middle of his cross-examination when the petitioner/complainant made a request to declare him a hostile witness which request was turned down --- Party could ask the Court to declare a witness as hostile when it was its witness , however , once the witness had completed the process of examination-in-chief and the moment when the opposite party had started cross - examination then such witness did not remain the party's witness ; and thus at such stage (i.e. cross-examination) it could not ask the Court to declare him as a hostile witness --

پنجاب میں میڈیکولیگل کے حوالے سے سرجن میڈیکولیگل پنجاب کی تازہ ترین ہدایات۔
ایڈہاک ڈاکٹر MLC یا پوسٹ مارٹم نہ کرسکے گا
Revised SOPs for Medico-legal Work Ehancing Standards and Accountability in Punjab.

REVISED UPDATED SOPS REGARDING MEDICOLEGAL WORK . Reference to the subject cited above , following Structured Operational Procedures ( SOPs ) are hereby revised and updated regarding medicolegal work in Punjab :

1 ) Police Docket

2 ) Consent

3 ) FIR , inquest report in case of Postmortem examination .

4 ) MLC & Death certificate as and when applicable in case of postmortem examination .

5 ) Complete bio - data of the victim including CNIC Number .

6 ) History regarding the details of the inciderice in the words of victim

7 ) Examination of clothes .

8 ) General Physical examination regarding orientation , Glasgow coma scale , Gait , Temperature pulse blood pressure & pupil examination .

9 ) Description of injuries in detail regarding the dimensions , configuration of injuries in reference with two prominent anatomical landmarks .

10 ) Investigations & expert opinion as & when required .

11 ) Probable duration of injury to be stated in accordance with examination findings

12 ) Nature of injury to be declared as per Qisas & Diyat Law stating it as either Jurh or its subtypes and not in the numeric inscriptions like 337-A-1 or 337-F-III etc.

13 ) Possibility of fabrication to be declared as either " YES " or " NO " with justification stated for every individual injury

14 ) The medicolegal certificate is to be duly signed & stamped with affixed stamp by name of the Initial-Medical Examiner .

15 ) All the injuries kept under observation in regards with expert opinion , radiology opinion , Dental Sisent . surgeon opinion and PFSA report to be declared within 21 days , without fail .

16 ) Any exceptional case which is to be kept under observation as per expert opinion of the specialist regarding the outcome of either temporary or permanent damage resultant to injury should be specifically stated in the medicolegal reporting

17 ) A provisional opinion as and when applicable must be formulated even if any reports are awaited.

18 ) If the case has been finalized and there is any sort of delay regarding receiving of MLC / postmortem report by the Police , the concerned M.O , W.M.O should dispatch the either report to the SHO of concerned police station vide registered post

19 ) In case of received dead no MLC is to be conducted and any suspicious death is to be reported to the police for postmortem examination if deemed necessary by police.

20 ) Dental opinion should duly be reported on prescribed Proforma and all the Dental Surgeons are bound to report the medicolegal dental opinion on the date of referral by IMLE positively .

21 ) Prescribed Proforma regarding expert opinion of any specialty is under process and are to be used for any opinion regarding radiology and any expert consultant .

22 ) Any uniform injured in any riot , MLC is to be conducted by IMLE .

23 ) Medicolegal examination in case of custodial death will be conducted by board ( DSMB ) .

24 ) In case of fights / riots where police is alleged party , medicolegal examination will be proceeded according to FIR .

25 ) " No injury certificate " is to be issued by IMLE in case of victim shifting to jail.

26 ) Chain of custody is to be documented thoroughly to check the reason for delay .

27 ) In case of incidence reported by victim or presented by concerned lawyer , the MLC and samples are to be handed over to concerned police only .

28 ) Unknown , unattended , unconscious individual's medicolegal certificate is mandatory .

29 ) Police docket , court orders and lady sub - inspector or any lady constable deputed by lady Sub Inspector should accompany the female victim of sexual assault for examination .

30 ) Viscera collected during postmortem examination for Histopathology & Toxicology are to be handed over to police immediately after conductance of postmortem examination as per PFSA guide lines .

31 ) In case of court orders and police docket any MLC is to be conducted immediately in true latter & spirit and not to be refused on any grounds .

32 ) In case of any ambiguity the IMLE should consult senior with medicolegal expert either DMLO / Head of Department of Forensic Medicine or any Forensic Medicine expert before conductance of MLC / postmortem examination .

33 ) No corrigendum is to be issued in case of any discrepancy in medicolegal reporting and as per Three Tier Structure the case should be challenged in DSMB .

34 ) In case of typographical error / clerical mistake a declaration stamp paper should be provided by the Doctor / IMLE regarding correction of mistake like for example if right is mentioned instead of left side .

35 ) No Adhoc Doctor is allowed to conduct medicolegal examination under any circumstances , SMO , SWMO are not exempt from medicolegal work and therefore , they should be incorporated in duty roster of medicolegal work .

36 ) Only experienced Senior MOS , SMOS with medicolegal experience should be marked for exhumation and no fresh inexperienced MO , WMO are to be involved in medicolegal work , prior to medicolegal training .

37 ) In case of delay of more than 12 hours in presentation for medicolegal examination the victim should submit a written explanation for delay before medicolegal examination .

Some Important Judgements of Mr. Justice Amjad Rafique.

PLJ 2023 Cr.C 934
Criteria/Pre-requisites for listing a person in 4th Schedule of ATA, 1997.

PLJ 2023 Lahore 777
Nature or gravity of an offence does not restrict grant of better class facility to an under-trial prisoner unless he maintains criminal history.

PLJ 2023 Cr.C 412
Voir dire (a trial within a trial) is a necessity to assess the accused as of unsound mind.

2023 MLD 1983 Abatement of criminal appeal; legal consequences

2023 PCr.LJ 1394
Admissibility of video evidence as document and real evidence.

PLJ 2023 Cr.C 195
2023 PC.rLJ 805 Additional questions to accused after his statement under section 342 Cr.P.C.

PLJ 2023 Cr.C 232
2023 YLR 2084
Role of first responder in the light of Section 157 Cr.P.C.

PLJ 2023 Cr.C 200
2023 YLR 2120 Common intention syllogism in the light of section 38 of PPC.

PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1549
Conditional order of bail is backed by law.

PLJ 2023 Cr.C 481
Chance of survival of deceased does not absolve the offender from criminal liability

2023 Pcr.LJ 487 Retention of government money without misappropriation is not the subject matter of criminal misconduct.

PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1599
Appeal against acquittal of a charge punishable with death and imprisonment for life shall be heard by a Division Bench.

PLJ 2022 Cr.C 1385
2023 PCr.LJ Note 117
Tooth is an ectodermal specialized organ, hurt would attract itlaf-i-udw u/s 334 read with Section 337-U PPC.

2023 YLR NOTE 1
Helix and cartilaginous, tissues of ear cannot be termed as organ or limbs so as to attract iflaf-i-udw.

PLJ 2022 Lahore 642
Objection on transfer of SIM, cognizance routes through Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996: FIR quashed.

PLJ 2022 Cr.C 918 Concept of hardened, desperate and dangerous criminal in petitions for bail and suspension of sentence.

PLJ 2022 Cr.C 1218
PLD 2022 Lahore 694
Probation wipes out effect of conviction as per Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance, 1960.

PLJ 2022 Cr.C 1074
PLD 2023 Lahore 291
Discharge of accused under section 265-D Cr.P.C. is a legal requirement.

PLJ 2022 Lahore 508
2023 PCr.LJ 834
Seizure by police of non-custom paid vehicles, matter to be referred to custom authorities only.

PLD 2022 Lahore 512 Schizophrenia calls for bail to be applied under section 466 Cr.P.C. before Trial Court.

2022 PCr.LJ Note 82
Failure to produce Memory Card on notice, secondary evidence would be the remedy to save its status as real evidence.

2022 MLD 1091
PLJ 2022 Cr.C 1152
Offences for electricity theft, registration of FIR is not barred.

PLJ 2022 Lahore 302
PLD 2022 Lahore 545
Law permits recording of statement under section 164 Cr.P.C. even out of a district.

PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 124
PLD 2022 Lahore 645
Child r**e, meaning of pe*******on; Tender years' exception to hearsay; Difference between recognition and identification.


PLJ 2022 Lahore 166
2023 PCr.LJ 265
Case false owing to mistake of law, it behooves to quash.

PLD 2022 Lahore 319
PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1229
Section 540 Cr.P.C, inquisitorial provision makes inroads in adversarial system.

PLJ 2022 Cr.C 748
2023 YLR 6
Theory of "Just desert"; Prosecutor to propose punishment.

PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 774
2022 PCr.LJ 1753
Transposition of statements; Shahada ala al-Shahada; Physical activity after fatal firearm injury

2023 YLR 264
Line of inquiry preceds further investigation and reinvestigation.

PLJ 2022 Cr.C 523
2022 PCrLJ 1005
"Beyond reasonable doubt" formulation is not for evidential burden on accused.

PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 355
2022 P Cr. L J 1828
No remedy of appeal against acquittal under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 476
2023 MLD 629
Fall from a height on to the feet or buttocks can cause fracture of vertebral column.

PLJ 2022 Cr.C 927
Murder by throttling, a complex indictment.

PLJ 2022 Cr.c. 765
PLD 2022 Lahore 427
PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 164
Offence under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 is non-compoundable; withdrawal of complaint under section 248 Cr.P.C. is the right course.

PLJ 2022 Cr.C 955
Safety protocols for swabs & tracking of DNA profiles in R**e with Murder Cases.

PLJ 2022 Cr.C. 257
2022 YLR 1920
Second marriage without permission; offence u/s 6(5)(b) of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, can only be tried by the Family Court.

2022 PCr.LJ 591 Defence evidence; procedural requirement to discharge evidential burden; 265-F Cr.P.C. a leading section.

PLJ 2021 Cr.C. 1772
2022 PCrLJ 259
If mens rea is added to a regulatory offence, it becomes entirely a different offence.

2022 PCrLJ 1050
Damages can be claimed for actionable wrong even though accused stood acquitted from criminal charge on same facts

2022 PCrLJ 203
No joint trial of offence under The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (PECA) and PPC.

2022 YLR 805
Principle of abundant caution

PLD 2022 Lahore 235
Mode of inquiry/investigation and value of foreign documents in the perspective of international cooperation and

2022 YLR 424
The abrasion, the most informative of all injueries.

2021 MLD 1664
Buprenorphine (Buepron) a psychotropic substance, jurisdiction of special court under CNSA is not barred

2021 PCr.LJ 1334
Register No. 19, Police Rules, 1934: Mode and manner of tendering in evidence

2021 P Cr. L J 1779
PLJ 2021 Lahore 951
Remedy against disobedience to the orders of the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace.

2021 Y L R 2253
Value of Res gestae evidence and informal admission

ضمانت قبل ازگرفتاری کی سطح پر مقدمہ کے ’’میرٹ‘‘ کو بھی ٹچ کیاجاسکتاہے تاکہ انصاف کےتقاضےپورے ہوسکیں،ناانصافی سےبچاجاسکے۔

2023-SCMR-1898
2023-SCMR-1712
2023-SCMR-1773
2023-SCMR-1729

Release of lunatic pending investigation or trial --- Principles --- Accused who is of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence should be released on sufficient security under Section 466 , Cr.P.C. , as a rule while the order for detaining him in safe custody is to be made only as an exception when there is an apprehension that he would not be properly taken care of or prevented from doing injury to himself or any other person .
PLD 2024 SUPREME COURT 75
Crl.P.172-L/2023
Zaigham Hassan Khan v. The State, etc

Spying over or extracting data from a personal phone of an individual or suspect is unconstitutional and illegal except with the permission of Court

Crl. Appeal
73676/22
Muhammad Rahmat Ullah Vs The State etc
2024 PCrLJ 1

VVVI.MUST READ JUDGEMENT.

It is also held that arrest of any person cannot be made without any evidence. This Court has also observed that in such like cases police oftenly arrest the accused on the ground that the complainant has strong suspicion or firm belief against him. Similarly, using the term that the complainant has come to know through reliable source (without disclosing that source) or land lord’s clue (زمیندارہ گویڑ)that any person is involved in the commission of crime, is also not a legal evidence and arrest cannot be made solely on this ground.

Crl. Misc.-Habeas Corpus-Under Section 491 CR.P.C
4043-H-23
RASHIDA BIBI VS SHO ETC.
Mr. Justice Muhammad Tariq Nadeem
10-10-2023
2023 LHC 5052

PLJ 2024 Lahore 1

Present: Ali Zia Bajwa, J.

SAKINA BIBI--Petitioner

versus

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, etc.--Respondents

W.P. No. 56691 of 2022, decided on 1.6.2023.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

----Ss. 22-A (6), 154, 156,177, 178 to 185--Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199--Police Rules, 1934, Rr. 25.1 to 25.8--Order passed by ex-officio Justice of Peace--Office of JOP is a quasi-judicial forum--Article 199 of Constitution petitioner has assailed vires of impugned order passed by ex-officio Justice of Peace, whereby application under section 22-A(6) of Cr.P.C. filed by her for registration of a criminal case was dismissed--Only jurisdiction which can be exercised by JOP under section
22-A(6) of Code is to examine whether information disclosed by applicant did or did not constitute a cognizable offence--To direct concerned SHO to register an FIR, without going into veracity of information in question--Office of JOP is a quasi-judicial forum and functions performed by it cannot be termed judicial or of a Court--Statutory provisions embodied in Code and The Police Rules, 1934 governing such situations are self-explanatory and unambiguous--Generally occurrence is to be investigated at a place where it ordinarily occurs--Word ordinarily means that it is a general principle--General rule are contained in Code itself in contents of succeeding sections from 178 to 185 of Code--The cumulative effect of sections 156(1) and 179 of Code is that an offence can be investigated by police officer having territorial jurisdiction over area where an act is committed or where consequence of that act ensues--Proposed accused abducted son of petitioner which was seen by eyewitnesses from territorial jurisdiction of police station--His dead body was found hanging on a tree within territorial jurisdiction of Police Station, District Sahiwal--A criminal case qua abduction and murder of son of petitioner can be registered at any of Districts, from where deceased was abducted or from where his dead body was recovered--Petition allowed.

[Pp. 3, 4, 5 & 6] A, B, C, D, E, F & G

Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)--

----Ss. 22-A (6), 154, 156,177, 178 to 185--Guidelines--

(i) When information regarding commission of cognizable offence is furnished to SHO of Police Station, in whose territorial jurisdiction offence has been committed, he is bound to register criminal case immediately.

(ii) A criminal case can be registered and investigated in a police station where a cognizable offence is committed or where its consequences ensue.

(iii) In case, where clearly a police station has no jurisdiction to investigate a cognizable offence and information of same is received, such information shall be recorded in daily diary and sent to Officer Incharge of relevant police station--Meanwhile, all possible lawful measures shall be taken to secure arrest of offender and detection of offence.

(iv) After registration of a criminal case and start of investigation by a police officer, if it transpires that police station lacks territorial jurisdiction, information shall be sent to Officer Incharge of relevant police station in that regard promptly, who shall take over investigation without delay.

(v) When a case is transferred from one police station to another due to lack of territorial jurisdiction or convenience of investigating officer having lawful authority to investigate that case, crime report registered in original police station shall be canceled by Superintendent of Police concerned--The complete record of case shall be sent to police station where case is transferred.

(vi) When there is a dispute qua territorial jurisdiction of two police stations, criminal case shall be registered at police station where information of cognizable offence is received first--The investigation shall be carried out jointly by police officers of both police stations until question of jurisdiction has been settled and acknowledged. [Pp. 8 & 9] H

Mr. Shakeel Ahmad Malik, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Shahid Nawab Cheema, AAG & Mr. Hafiz Asghar Ali DPG with Shahida S.P (Investigation) Pakpattan along with report and Ashiq Abid, S.I/SHO for State.

Rana Muhammad Shahid, Advocate for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 1.6.2023.

Judgment

Through this writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (hereinafter “the Constitution”), the petitioner has assailed the vires of the impugned order dated 15.08.2022 passed by the ex-officio Justice of Peace (hereinafter “the JOP”), Pakpattan Sharif, whereby the application under Section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter “the Code”) filed by her for registration of a criminal case was dismissed.

2. Arguments heard and the record perused.

3. The record reflects that the petitioner filed an application under Section 22-A (6) of the Code for registration of a criminal case before the JOP with the allegation that Respondents No. 5 to 9 abducted her son namely Muhammad Usman on 03-11-2021 at gunpoint from the territorial jurisdiction of police station Chak Badi District, Pakpattan and took him away to an unknown place. The occurrence was witnessed by Munir Ahmad and Khadim. The petitioner further alleged that on 13.11.2021, she received the information that the dead body of her son was lying in DHQ Hospital, Sahiwal. On reaching the hospital, she was informed by the police of Police Station Ghalla Mandi, District Sahiwal that the dead body was hanging on a tree. JOP dismissed the application of the petitioner with findings as infra:

“that alleged occurrence qua abduction of son of petitioner has not taken place within District, Pakpattan Sharif and resultantly this Court is not inclined to order for registration of FIR. Hence, instant petition is hereby dismissed accordingly.”

4. It has been straightaway observed by this Court that the JOP dismissed the application of the petitioner mainly on the grounds that no evidence could be brought on the record that son of the petitioner was abducted from District Pakpattan and since the dead body was found in District Sahiwal, therefore, direction for registration of criminal case cannot be issued. There are two important legal questions involved in this writ petition which are formulated as infra:-

A) Whether JOP had any jurisdiction to render his finding qua the veracity of the allegations leveled against the proposed accused; and

B) In a case where the abduction took place in District Pakpattan Sharif and the dead body was found in District Sahiwal, where the criminal case can be registered and investigated.

5. As far as the first question is concerned, it is a settled proposition of law as enunciated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan that the only jurisdiction which can be exercised by JOP under Section 22-A(6) of the Code is to examine whether the information disclosed by the applicant did or did not constitute a cognizable offence and if it did, then to direct the concerned Station House Officer to register an FIR, without going into the veracity of the information in question and no more.[1] The JOP traveled beyond his mandate while holding in the impugned order, in an unequivocal manner, that the son of the petitioner was not abducted in the manner alleged by her. Such findings of the JOP are touching the merits and veracity of allegations, hence, utterly unwarranted and not sustainable in the eye of the law. These findings would have the effect of burying the case of the petitioner at its very inception, which is yet to be registered, investigated and tried. It has also been observed that the JOP while passing the impugned order used the word ‘Court’ for him, which is highly misconceived and misunderstood, as it is trite law that the office of JOP is a quasi-judicial forum and functions performed by it cannot be termed judicial or of a Court.[2]

6. Now I would like to take up the next vital question, which in my humble view is not a complicated one, as the statutory provisions embodied in the Code and The Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter the „Rules) governing such situations are self-explanatory and unambiguous. It shall be appropriate to reproduce the relevant Sections of the Code for better comprehension. Sections 156, 177 & 179 of the Code are of utmost importance and relevance, hence, have been reproduced hereinafter: -

Section 156 of the Code

Investigation into cognizable cases. (1) Any officer-incharge of a police-station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XV relating to the place of inquiry or trial.

(2)…….

(3)…….

(4)…….

Section 177, Cr.P.C.

Ordinary place of inquiry and trial -Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed.

Section 179, Cr.P.C.

Accused triable in district where act is done or where consequence ensues. When a person is accused of the commission of offence by reason of anything which has been done, and of any consequence which has ensued, such offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any such thing has been done, or any such consequence has ensued.

Section 156(1) of the Code contemplates that any officer-in-charge of a police station can investigate a cognizable offence, which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such police station would have the power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XV of the Code relating to the place of inquiry or trial. A bare perusal of Sections 156(1) and 177 of the Code makes it abundantly clear that as a general rule, a criminal case should be registered and investigated by the police station, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such offence was committed. Keeping in perspective the word “ordinarily” in Section 177 read with Section 156(1) of the Code, it is apparent, that generally the occurrence is to be investigated at a place where it ordinarily occurs, so the word ordinarily means that it is a general principle. The exceptions to that general rule are contained in the Code itself in the contents of the succeeding Sections from 178 to 185 of the Code. For the purpose of lis in hand, the relevant provision of law is Section 179 of the Code.

7. The cumulative effect of Sections 156(1) and 179 of the Code is that an offence can be investigated by the police officer having territorial jurisdiction over the area where an act is committed or where the consequence of that act ensues. Sections 156(1) and 177 of the Code provide for the simplest cases and perhaps the cases which most frequently occur, namely, of an offence committed entirely within a single jurisdiction. On the other hand, Section 156(1) read with Section 179 of the Code enlarges as much as possible the ambit of the sites in which the criminal case can be registered and investigated to minimize, as much as possible, the inconvenience caused by a technical plea of want of territorial jurisdiction of a police station. The wisdom of lawmakers to extend the jurisdiction to various police stations, where an information qua the cognizable offence can be registered and investigated, is to provide against an accused escaping guilt. The general rule of lex fori[3] has been relaxed by Section 156(1) of the Code.

8. Mere depiction of the occurrence, as stated in the applications filed before the police, reveals that the proposed accused abducted the son of the petitioner namely Usman at gunpoint which was seen by the eyewitnesses from the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Chak Bedi, District PakPattan Sharif. Subsequently, his dead body was found hanging on a tree within the territorial jurisdiction of Police Station Ghalla Mandi, District Sahiwal. In view of the above-discussed legal position, a criminal case qua the abduction and murder of the son of the petitioner namely Usman can be registered at any of the Districts, from where the deceased was abducted or from where his dead body was recovered. As the application was filed by the petitioner at Chak Bedi, District Pak Pattan Sharif, therefore, SHO of that police station was under a bounden duty to register the criminal case but unfortunately needful was not done.

9. It would not be out of place to observe here that in a number of cognizable offences, registration of crime reports is delayed on the pretext of lack of territorial jurisdiction of a particular Police Station. Such conduct of police officers not only results in the loss of valuable evidence due to delay but also provides an opportunity for accused persons to escape their criminal liability. Law on the subject is very clear that if information regarding a cognizable offence is received, the same cannot be neglected on the pretext of lack of territorial jurisdiction. Relevant rules of the Rules governing such situations have been reproduced for better understanding as infra:-

25.3. Action when offence occurring in another police station is reported.-

When the occurrence of a cognizable offence in another police station jurisdiction is reported, the fact shall be recorded in the daily diary and information shall be sent to the officer-in-charge of the police station in the jurisdiction of which the offence was committed. Meanwhile, all possible lawful measures shall be taken to secure the arrest of the offender and the detection of the offence.

25.4. Where offence appears to have occurred in other police station. -

(1) If a police officer after registering a case and commencing and investigation discovers that the offence was committed in the jurisdiction of another police station he shall at once send information to the officer-in-charge of such police station.

(2) Upon receipt of information such officer shall proceed without delay to the place where the investigation is being held and undertake the investigation.

25.5. Disputes as to jurisdiction.

Should the officer who is thus summoned to the spot dispute the jurisdiction, both officers shall jointly carry on the investigation under the orders of the senior officer and neither shall leave until the question of jurisdiction has been settled and acknowledged. The case record shall be kept at the police station where the information was first received until the question of jurisdiction has been decided.

25.8. Cases which may be lawfully investigated in more local areas than one. –

(1) If the case is one which the officer in charge of the police station may lawfully investigate, but which may also be lawfully and more successfully investigated in another police station, such officer while continuing his investigation, shall refer the matter to the Superintendent, who shall transfer the case or not as he sees fit.

(2) If it is desired to transfer the case to a police station in another district, the Superintendent shall refer the matter to the District Magistrate and move him to act according to the orders contained in Chapter 26, Volume III, of the Rules and Orders of the High Court.

(3) When an investigation has been transferred from one district to another the police files with original first information report shall be forwarded to the Superintendent of the district to which the transfer is made.

The abovementioned rules are self-explanatory and clearly lay down an effective mechanism and the duties of a police officer in case of uncertainty regarding the territorial jurisdiction of a particular police station. The scheme of law provided under the rules clearly reflects the intention of the legislature that a blind eye cannot be turned to the information of the commission of a cognizable offence on the pretext of lack of territorial jurisdiction. For convenience following guidelines can be articulated:-

I. When the information regarding the commission of the cognizable offence is furnished to the SHO of the Police Station, in whose territorial jurisdiction the offence has been committed, he is bound to register the criminal case immediately.[4]

II. A criminal case can be registered and investigated in a police station where a cognizable offence is committed or where its consequences ensue.[5]

III. In the case, where clearly a police station has no jurisdiction to investigate a cognizable offence and information of the same is received, such information shall be recorded in the daily diary and sent to the Officer Incharge of the relevant police station. Meanwhile, all possible lawful measures shall be taken to secure the arrest of the offender and the detection of the offence.[6]

IV. After registration of a criminal case and the start of the investigation by a police officer, if it transpires that the police station lacks territorial jurisdiction, information shall be sent to the Officer Incharge of the relevant police station in that regard promptly, who shall take over the investigation without delay.[7]

V. When a case is transferred from one police station to another due to lack of territorial jurisdiction or convenience of investigating officer having lawful authority to investigate that case,[8] the crime report registered in the original police station shall be canceled by the Superintendent of police concerned.[9] The complete record of the case shall be sent to the police station where the case is transferred.[10]

VI. When there is a dispute qua the territorial jurisdiction of two police stations, the criminal case shall be registered at the police station where the information of cognizable offence is received first. The investigation shall be carried out jointly by the police officers of both police stations until the question of jurisdiction has been settled and acknowledged.[11]

10. In the sequel to above, I am of the considered view that the impugned order dated 15.08.2022 passed by the JOP is not sustainable in the eye of the law, therefore, while allowing this writ petition, the same is set aside with a direction to Respondent No. 4 i.e. SHO Police Station Chak Bedi, District PakPattan Sharif to record the version of the petitioner under Section 154 of the Code and register a criminal case. It goes without saying that the investigation, in this case, should be conducted on merits after bringing on the record the evidence of both sides strictly in accordance with the law without getting

prejudiced from any finding rendered in the impugned order. The investigating agency shall file its report under Section 173 of the Code after completing the investigation expeditiously within the stipulated time in the spirit of verdict of Supreme Court of Pakistan rendered in Hakim Mumtaz Ahmad.[12]

(K.Q.B.) Petition allowed

[1]. PLD 2007 SC 539.

[2]. PLD 2018 SC 595.

[3]. According to Advanced Law Lexicon, Volume 3, published by LexisNexis, Lex fori means ‘The law of the forum of Court.

[4]. Section 154 of the Code & Rule 25.1 of The Police Rules, 1934.

[5]. Section 156(1) read with Section 179 of the Code & Rule 25.8 of The Police Rules, 1934.

[6]. Rule 25.3 of The Police Rules, 1934.

[7]. Rule 25.4 of The Police Rules, 1934.

[8]. Rule 25.8 of The Police Rules, 1934.

[9]. Rule 25.7 of The Police Rules, 1934.

[10]. Rule 25.8 of The Police Rules, 1934.

[11]. Rule 25.5 of The Police Rules, 1934.

[12]. Hakim Mumtaz Ahmad & another vs. The State-PLD 2002 Supreme Court 590.