🕒

Magistrates can try sessions court offences, rules LHC


.


LAHORE:

The Lahore High Court ( LHC) has ruled that a judicial magistrate specially empowered under Section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can try offences punishable with imprisonment, including those which the Second Schedule ordinarily assigns to the

session courts, provided they are not punishable with death and not reserved for another court under a special law.

The court held that the decisive factor for determining the competence of a magistrate empowered under Section 30 is whether the offence carries the death penalty, and not whether Schedule II identifies the session court as the ordinary trial forum.

LHC Justice Muhammad Jawad Zafar, while dismissing a petition challenging the continuation of a criminal trial before a Section 30 magistrate, observed that the addition of an offence to a charge during trial does not divest such a magistrate of jurisdiction unless the added offence is punishable with death or a special law specifically excludes the magistrate’s jurisdiction.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Ahmad Saeed Akhtar under Section 561-A CrPC, challenging two orders passed by subordinate courts in a complaint by Muhammad Nadir Ali against him and others.

In another case, the LHC ruled that a magistrate cannot summon a person to face trial merely on the basis of a complainant’s allegations after disagreeing with a police report recommending cancellation of a criminal case, holding that such a decision must be supported by independent incriminating material available on the record.

Emphasising that summoning an individual for trial carries the stigma of criminal prosecution, potential curtailment of liberty and the burden of prolonged proceedings, Justice Muhammad Jawad Zafar observed that a magistrate cannot mechanically reject a report or use criminal proceedings to provide a complainant an opportunity to explore allegations that the investigation has found unsupported.

The FIR had been lodged by Razia Begum, mother of the petitioner, over an alleged altercation during a company’s annual general meeting.



Source link

Leave a Comment