6. The epitome of the above discussion is that if sections 63 and 169 Cr.P.C. are read and considered together, one can easily infer that a Magistrate may discharge an accused person during investigation but the same would be done on the report of the police and not in the manner as has been done by the learned Magistrate in the present case. At this point, a question arises that if a Magistrate, in a case, considers that there is no case whatsoever against the accused person in custody then whether the accused must be kept in custody by restricting his right of liberty? In this situation, section 497 Cr.P.C. takes care; thus, to order straightaway under section 63 Cr.P.C. is contrary to the provisions of section 497 Cr.P.C. and in the present case, when the impugned order is gone through it appears that the learned Magistrate has gone deeply into facts of the case, put-forth by the defence side and entered into domain of investigation at the initial stage, because on the first day of arrest, the accused persons were discharged, especially when they were produced by I.O. seeking physical remand under section 167 Cr.P.C. and under the said provision, the learned Magistrate was not empowered to discharge the accused persons.
Part of Judgment
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT RAWALPINDI BENCH, RAWALPINDI.
Writ Petition-Criminal proceedings-Detention/habeas
1421-20
0 Comments