case law on 22 A B allow

(2013 P Cr. L J 117 [Sindh] Before Nadeem Akhtar, J)

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----Ss. 22-A & 154---Information disclosed to Justice of Peace constituting a cognizable offence---Duty of Justice of Peace in such circumstances to give directions for registration for F.I.R.---Scope---Cognizable offence committed during pendency of a civil dispute---Complainant alleged that he had purchased a property from the accused and had paid the entire sale consideration but despite such fact accused refused to hand over the property---Accused while armed with weapons visited Otaq of complainant and threatened to kill him if he continued with his demand of the said property---Station House Officer (SHO) refused to register F.I.R. for the incident because of which complainant approached the Justice of Peace, who on basis of police report refused to give directions for registration of F.I.R. and observed that dispute was a civil dispute which had arisen out of an agreement to sell, therefore, same should be taken to the civil court---Validity---Application of complainant before Justice of Peace was dismissed on basis of police report and not on the basis of the incident narrated and specific allegations made by the complainant---Contents of the application made by the complainant were not considered by the Justice of Peace in order to determine whether any cognizable offence had been made out or not---Justice of Peace was duty bound to determine the question of existence or non-existence of cognizable offence without going into the veracity of the information in question---Complainant did not conceal the existence of a civil dispute in his application before the Justice of Peace and only raised the specific allegation that accused forcibly entered into his Otaq with weapons and threatened to murder him---Despite such serious allegations, Justice of Peace did not deal with the basic questions whether information disclosed by the complainant did or did not constitute a cognizable offence, and whether the Station House Officer (SHO) refused to register the complaint---Impugned order of Justice of Peace was not a speaking order as no valid reason had been mentioned therein to show that prayer made by complainant had been declined after proper and full application of mind---Impugned order was a nullity and accordingly set aside by the High Court with the direction that Station House Officer should record statement of complainant if a cognizable offence was made out on basis of such statement---Application was allowed accordingly.
Mst. Bhaitan v. The State and 3 others PLD 2005 Kar. 621; Salah-ud-Din Khan, S.H.O. and 2 others v. Noor Jehan and another PLD 2008 Pesh. 53 and Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer, Okara Cantt. and others PLD 2007 SC 539 rel.
(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----Ss. 154 & 155---Registration of F.I.R.---Scope---Station House Officer (SHO) of Police holding inquiry to assess correctness of information provided by complainant---Legality---No provision in any law, including Ss.154 and 155, Cr.P.C., authorized an Officer Incharge of the Police Station to hold any inquiry to assess the correctness or falsity of the information received by him before complying with the mandatory requirement of reducing the information into writing irrespective of the fact whether such information was true or not.
(c) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 22-A---Justice of Peace calling for police report/comments for deciding an application under S.22-A, Cr.P.C.---Validity---When it was alleged in an application under S.22-A, Cr.P.C. that a cognizable offence had been committed and same was not registered by the Station House Officer despite applicant's complaint, then it was not necessary for the Justice of Peace to call for comments or report from police in order to decide such an application.
(d) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 22-A---Cognizable offence committed during pendency of a civil/private dispute---Justice of Peace dismissing application under S.22-A, Cr.P.C. due to existence of private or civil dispute---Validity---Dismissal of application under S.22-A, Cr.P.C. by Justice of Peace in such circumstances would be a misconception because, firstly, had the same been the intention of the law makers, then a barring clause would have been inserted in S.22-A, Cr.P.C. barring all applications before Justice of Peace wherein parties were involved in a private or civil dispute, and secondly, because parties might have a private or civil dispute and at the same time during pendency of such dispute, one or both parties might commit a (criminal) offence against the other---Parties, in such a situation, should have both remedies available to them, one before the competent civil court and the other before the proper forum prescribed under Cr.P.C.
(e) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----S. 22-A---Information disclosed to Justice of Peace constituting a cognizable offence---Duty of Justice of Peace in such circumstances to give directions for registration of F.I.R.---Scope---When an oral or written complaint was made before the Justice of Peace in respect of an offence, he was bound under S.22-A(6), Cr.P.C. to examine whether the information disclosed by the applicant did or did not constitute a cognizable offence, and if it did according to his own independent opinion as per facts narrated by the applicant, then he was bound to direct the Station House Officer (SHO) to register an F.I.R., without going into veracity of the information and irrespective of any private or civil dispute between the parties.
(f) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----Ss. 22-A & 154---Station House Officer receiving directions from Justice of Peace to register F.I.R.---Duty of Station House Officer to register an F.I.R. in such circumstances---Scope---Upon a direction issued by Justice of Peace, concerned Station House Officer was bound to register an F.I.R. under S.154, Cr.P.C., whether the information received by him was false or correct and whether any private or civil dispute between the parties was pending or not---Station House Officer had no power to refuse to register the F.I.R., if the offence appeared to be cognizable from the information received by him. 

ملڪ مان نڪرندڙ قدرتي وسيلن جھڙوڪ تيل ۽گيس بابت سپريم ڪورٽ جو فيصلو

P L D 2014 Supreme Court 350
Present: Jawwad S. Khawaja, Khilji Arif Hussain and Gulzar Ahmed, JJ
APPLICATION BY ABDUL HAKEEM KHOSO, ADVOCATE---In the matter of Constitutional Petitions Nos. 46, 278-Q and Human Rights Case No.36052-S of 2013, decided on 27th December, 2013.
(a) Constitution of Pakistan---
----Art. 172(2) & (3)---Natural resources, ownership of---Mineral oil and natural gas---People of Pakistan were the ultimate owners of natural resources including mineral oil and natural gas through their Governments and State controlled entities.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 184(3)---Constitutional petition under Art. 184(3) of the Constitution regarding contractual and legal obligations of oil Exploration and Production (E&P) companies operating in Pakistan towards the environment and welfare and uplift of areas of their operation---Enforcement of fundamental rights of citizens---Suo motu notice by the Supreme Court under Art. 184(3) of the Constitution, significance of---Chief Justice of Pakistan took note of a speech delivered by an office bearer of a District Bar Association wherein certain violations of law and the terms and conditions of [petroleum concession] agreements by oil Exploration and Production (E&P) companies operating in the concerned district were highlighted---Copy of the speech was marked by the Chief Justice to the Human Rights Cell (HRC) of the Supreme Court---Report/comments received from concerned personnel and functionaries were found unsatisfactory and it was, therefore, directed that the matter be put up in the Supreme Court as a petition under Art.184(3) of the Constitution---Supreme Court observed that significance of Art.184(3) of the Constitution in enforcing the fundamental rights of the people all over the country without the necessity of having a petitioner from each district was evident from the present case; that in the ordinary course it would have been extremely difficult logistically and financially for a resident of concerned district to file and pursue legal recourse in the civil courts or in the constitutional courts, and even if such recourse had been taken it would have remained confined to issues relating to the concerned district; that it was only on account of Art. 184(3) of the Constitution and the willingness and ability of the (Supreme) Court to take notice suo motu that the entire country spread over more than 105 Districts had been brought within the compass of one initiative taken by the concerned District Bar Association and then proactively dealt with by the Human Rights Cell of the (Supreme) Court and then in court hearings; that it should be obvious from the facts of the present case that conventional methods of seeking legal redress could be grossly inadequate for people without sufficient means, particularly when they might be pitted against more resourceful individuals and corporate entities; that present case summedup the rationale behind Art.184(3) of the Constitution, and the wisdom and foresight of the framers who sought an egalitarian polity by equalising the ordinary citizen with those of greater resources and means, in matters of "public importance with reference to the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights" guaranteed by the Constitution.
(c) Constitution of Pakistan---
----Arts. 9, 14 & 184(3)---Constitutional petition under Art. 184(3) of the Constitution regarding contractual and legal obligations of oil Exploration and Production (E&P) companies operating in Pakistan towards the environment and welfare and uplift of areas of their operation---Maintainability---Plea of applicants that oil exploring companies were acting in violation of law and the terms and conditions of the [petroleum concession] agreements which they executed with the Government whereby they were bound to control environmental pollution, provide jobs and gas facility to the local people and spend specified amount[s] on the local infrastructure such as roads, schools, hospitals and the betterment of local people---Such plea of applicants was not without substance and Federal, Provincial and Local Governments had failed to ensure performance of the obligations of Exploration and Production (E&P) companies, which were actively exploring nearly one-third of the land area of the country---Vast numbers of people were affected by the issues arising in the present case, therefore it raised matters of public importance relating directly to their fundamental rights; especially those guaranteed in Arts.9 & 14 of the Constitution---Constitutional petition was held to be maintainable accordingly.

PLD.2016.SC.951... case law on 161 crpc

PLD.2016.SC.951...
Section..161..crpc..Supplementary statement recorded by prosecution witness after more than a month of the occurrence...
such statement has no legal valve and was inadmissible in evidence and could not be used to contradict the contents of the FIR...
Supplementary statement recorded subsequently to the FIR could be viewed as improvement made to the witness,s statement...