Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 164---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468 & 471---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Recording of second statement---Petitioner was denying his earlier statement having been made voluntarily and with free will---Petitioner was not an accused in the original F.I.R., but he was inducted as an accused in the case as per his saying after refusal to become prosecution witness and he had levelled serious allegations of having obtained his signatures/thumb impressions by the Reader of the court on a blank paper in connivance with the Investigating Officer, when the Magistrate was not even sitting in the court---Law did not expressly or impliedly prohibit recording of second statement under S.164, Cr.P.C.---Constitutional petition was allowed and petitioner could get his second statement recorded under S.164, Cr. P. C. voluntarily according to his own wishes--Veracity of the statement/credibility of the petitioner making two contradictory statements would be considered by the Trial Court during the trial.
Ch. Muhammad Yousaf for Petitioner.
Muhammad Najam-ul-Hassan Gill, A.A.-G. for the State.
MANZOOR HUSSAIN VS SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE2008 Y L R 2679[Lahore]Before M.A. Zafar, JMANZOOR HUSSAIN---PetitionerVersusSPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE and 2 others-RespondentsWrit Petition No.7652 of 2008, decided on 07/07/2008.
ORDER
M.A. ZAFAR, J.---This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan,1973, has been filed Manzoor Hussain/petitioner with the following prayer:---
"the impugned order dated 15-5-2008 passed by respondent No.1 and impugned order, dated 13-6-2008 passed by respondent No.2 may kindly be set aside and respondent No. 1 be directed to summon the petitioner from the jail and record his second statement under section 164. Cr:P.C. of the petitioner for the interest of justice and fair play."
2. The case of the petitioner is that he recited Nikah between Mst. Shabana Muhammad Ali and Allah Bakhsh Pasha on 29-3-2007 in the presence of the witnesses according to Sharia and issued Nikahnama and the same was registered with Union Council Taj Bagh Lahore and with NADRA Department, Lahore. Later on petitioner was approached by the relatives of Mst. Shabana and put pressure on her of denying the reciting of Nikah and to become a :,witness for. the prosecution in case F,I.R. No. 220 of 2008, dated 20-3-2008 registered with Police Station Qila Gujjar Singh, Lahore under sections 420/468/471 P.P.0 at the instance of Shabana Muhammad Ali. It is further averred in the petition that petitioner in a handcuff on 15-4-2008 was taken by Investigating Officer who in connivance with the Reader of the Court got his signature and thumb-impression on a white paper, during that process the Magistrate was not sitting in the Court and the petition was unaware about the contents of the statement which was taken under duress/coercion and ultimately he was sent to the judicial lock-up arraying him as an accused in the aforesaid case.
Petitioner filed an application under sections 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C. seeking direction from the learned Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which was disposed of with the direction to approach the learned Magistrate and thereafter the learned Magistrate vide order dated 15-5-2008 declined to record the second statement of the petitioner under section 164 Cr.P.C. Feeling aggrieved petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, vide order dated 13-6-2008. Both the aforesaid orders passed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge have been impugned in this petition.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the earlier alleged statement of the petitioner was obtained under coercion by producing him in a handcuff and his signatures/thumb-?impressions were obtained by the reader of the Court on a blank paper and the said statement cannot be treated as having made voluntarily.
4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer has opposed the request and submits that there is no need to record second statement of the petitioner under section 164 Cr.P.C.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that petitioner is denying his earlier statement having been made voluntarily and with free-will. He was not an accused in the original F.I.R but he was inducted as an accused in the case as per his saying after refusal to become prosecution witness and he has levelled serious allegations of having obtained his signatures/thumb-impressions by the reader of the Court on a blank paper in connivance with the Investigating Officer when the learned Magistrate was no even sitting in the Court. Petitioner has filed this petition when he was in jail and now as per his counsel he has been released on bail after about 3-1/2 months. Law does not expressly or impliedly prohibit recording of second statement under section 164, Cr.P.C.
6. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and petitioner may get his second statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. voluntarily according to his own wishes. The veracity of the statements/credibility of the petitioner making two contradictory statements will he considered by the learned trial Court during the trial.
H.B.T./M-269/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 164---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468 & 471---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Recording of second statement---Petitioner was denying his earlier statement having been made voluntarily and with free will---Petitioner was not an accused in the original F.I.R., but he was inducted as an accused in the case as per his saying after refusal to become prosecution witness and he had levelled serious allegations of having obtained his signatures/thumb impressions by the Reader of the court on a blank paper in connivance with the Investigating Officer, when the Magistrate was not even sitting in the court---Law did not expressly or impliedly prohibit recording of second statement under S.164, Cr.P.C.---Constitutional petition was allowed and petitioner could get his second statement recorded under S.164, Cr. P. C. voluntarily according to his own wishes--Veracity of the statement/credibility of the petitioner making two contradictory statements would be considered by the Trial Court during the trial.
Ch. Muhammad Yousaf for Petitioner.
Muhammad Najam-ul-Hassan Gill, A.A.-G. for the State.
ORDER
M.A. ZAFAR, J.---This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan,1973, has been filed Manzoor Hussain/petitioner with the following prayer:---
"the impugned order dated 15-5-2008 passed by respondent No.1 and impugned order, dated 13-6-2008 passed by respondent No.2 may kindly be set aside and respondent No. 1 be directed to summon the petitioner from the jail and record his second statement under section 164. Cr:P.C. of the petitioner for the interest of justice and fair play."
2. The case of the petitioner is that he recited Nikah between Mst. Shabana Muhammad Ali and Allah Bakhsh Pasha on 29-3-2007 in the presence of the witnesses according to Sharia and issued Nikahnama and the same was registered with Union Council Taj Bagh Lahore and with NADRA Department, Lahore. Later on petitioner was approached by the relatives of Mst. Shabana and put pressure on her of denying the reciting of Nikah and to become a :,witness for. the prosecution in case F,I.R. No. 220 of 2008, dated 20-3-2008 registered with Police Station Qila Gujjar Singh, Lahore under sections 420/468/471 P.P.0 at the instance of Shabana Muhammad Ali. It is further averred in the petition that petitioner in a handcuff on 15-4-2008 was taken by Investigating Officer who in connivance with the Reader of the Court got his signature and thumb-impression on a white paper, during that process the Magistrate was not sitting in the Court and the petition was unaware about the contents of the statement which was taken under duress/coercion and ultimately he was sent to the judicial lock-up arraying him as an accused in the aforesaid case.
Petitioner filed an application under sections 22-A and 22-B Cr.P.C. seeking direction from the learned Sessions Judge/Ex-Officio Justice of Peace, which was disposed of with the direction to approach the learned Magistrate and thereafter the learned Magistrate vide order dated 15-5-2008 declined to record the second statement of the petitioner under section 164 Cr.P.C. Feeling aggrieved petitioner filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, vide order dated 13-6-2008. Both the aforesaid orders passed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Additional Sessions Judge have been impugned in this petition.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the earlier alleged statement of the petitioner was obtained under coercion by producing him in a handcuff and his signatures/thumb-?impressions were obtained by the reader of the Court on a blank paper and the said statement cannot be treated as having made voluntarily.
4. On the other hand, learned Law Officer has opposed the request and submits that there is no need to record second statement of the petitioner under section 164 Cr.P.C.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that petitioner is denying his earlier statement having been made voluntarily and with free-will. He was not an accused in the original F.I.R but he was inducted as an accused in the case as per his saying after refusal to become prosecution witness and he has levelled serious allegations of having obtained his signatures/thumb-impressions by the reader of the Court on a blank paper in connivance with the Investigating Officer when the learned Magistrate was no even sitting in the Court. Petitioner has filed this petition when he was in jail and now as per his counsel he has been released on bail after about 3-1/2 months. Law does not expressly or impliedly prohibit recording of second statement under section 164, Cr.P.C.
6. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and petitioner may get his second statement recorded under section 164, Cr.P.C. voluntarily according to his own wishes. The veracity of the statements/credibility of the petitioner making two contradictory statements will he considered by the learned trial Court during the trial.
H.B.T./M-269/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.
0 Comments