| Case ID |
108ab197-d2e6-4a05-b006-95b84220cf10 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Crl. Misc. No. Q-23 of 2006 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 21, 2006 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court partially accepted the petition, striking down the impugned enquiry proceedings undertaken by the Judicial Magistrate, which were found to be without legal backing and beyond the scope of jurisdiction as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was determined that the powers of an ex-officio Justice of Peace could not be delegated to a Magistrate. The ruling emphasized that no court could exercise supervisory powers over investigation agencies and that the determination of guilt or innocence depended on the facts presented during the trial. The court ruled that the statements recorded in the inquiry were to be scrutinized by the trial court, reinforcing the principle that the trial court holds the prerogative to assess the validity and admissibility of confessions. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around the jurisdiction and powers of an ex-officio Justice of Peace under the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898. The High Court of Peshawar examined the procedural validity of actions taken by lower courts in an ongoing murder investigation. The court highlighted the importance of maintaining the integrity of judicial processes and the non-delegation of powers assigned to judiciary officials. The ruling serves as a precedent for ensuring that judicial officers do not overstep their authority, thereby protecting the rights of the accused and the integrity of legal proceedings. Key issues addressed included the admissibility of confessional statements, the role of judicial magistrates in investigations, and the inherent powers of the High Court to quash proceedings that violate legal standards. The case underscores the necessity for adherence to procedural law in criminal cases, ensuring justice is served without undue influence. |
| Court |
Peshawar High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
HAMID FAROOQ DURRANI, J.
|
| Lawyers |
Mr. M.A. Tahirkheli,
Ms. Raheela Mughal,
M/s. Sajjad Afzal,
Mr. Saeed Akhtar Khan,
Syed Shabbir Hussain Shah
|
| Petitioners |
MUHAMMAD HAROON KHAN
|
| Respondents |
KHALIQ DAD KHAN,
Wasim Khan Jadoon,
Aman Ullah Khan,
Naeem Gul,
Junaid son of Hakam Dad Khan
|
| Citations |
2007 SLD 3085,
2007 PLJ 390
|
| Other Citations |
PLD 2005 Lah. 480,
PLD 1971 SC 677,
2005 PCr.LJ 1524,
PLD 1961 SC 61,
PLD 1975 SC 275,
2003 SCMR 68,
2005 PCr.LJ 357,
1996 SCMR 186,
2005 YLR 2325,
PLD 2006 Lah. 304,
1997 MLD 3021,
2003 YLR 3191,
PLD 1953 Lah. 495,
PLD 2005 Lah. 470,
PLD 2005 Kar. 621
|
| Laws Involved |
Criminal Procedure Code, 1898
|
| Sections |
25,
22-A(6),
164,
561-A
|