Pakistan Case Law← Search
1999 P Cr. L J 2055

MEER MUHAMMAD and another vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/DISTRICT

Citation1999 P Cr. L J 2055
CourtLahore High Court
Judge(s)Sh. Abdul Razzaq
ResultPetition allowed

' Instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, is directed against the order, dated 29-9-1996 whereby the Office Order, dated 24-9-1996 has been recalled and proceedings under section 193, P.P.C. Have been ordered to be initiated against the present petitioner.

2. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the basis of F.I.R. No,264, dated 16- 8-1996 a case under section 324/337-A(ii)/148/149, P.P.C. Was registered at Police Station Kot Chhutta, District D.G. Khan, against respondents Nos.5 to 10. In the said case Faiz Ali son of Faqir Muhammad, real nephew of Meer Muhammad, complainant, was injured who was got medically examined on 16-8-1996. Since the accused party was not satisfied with the said medical examination, so an application was moved by Muhammad Akram, accused/respondent No,6, for the constitution of Medical Board and his reexamination. Accordingly, vide order, dated 21-8-1996 passed by the District Magistrate. D.G. Khan, Medical Board was constituted for re-examination of Faiz Ali son of Faqir Muhammad injured. Accordingly, he was re-examined on 12-9-1996. Later on, Faqir Muhammad petitioner No,2 moved an application for cancellation of Medical Board for re- examination of the injured Faiz Ali on the ground that re-examination of the injured on 12-9-1996 could not be carried out as the said examination was conducted after 21 days of the first medical examination. On the basis of this application the re-examination conducted on 12-9-1996 was cancelled vide order, dated 24-9-1996. Against this order an application was moved by Noor Muhammad, accused/respondent No,5, that Faqir Muhammad had obtained the said order by concealing some facts and he be proceeded against in accordance with law. Without passing any order on the application moved by Noor Muhammad, a report by the District Attorney was made on the application of the petitioner whereby he suggested that the order, dated 24-9-1996 had been obtained by Faqir Muhammad by concealing facts. On the basis of said opinion of the District Attorney, the District Magistrate recalled his previous order and further ordered that Faqir Muhammad be proceeded under section 193, P.P.C. His contention is that no concealment was ever made by Faqir Muhammad as admittedly Faiz Ali was medically examined on 16-8-1996 and was re-examined on 12-9-1996. As per decision of Secretary, Health Department, Government of the Punjab, Medical Board can only be constituted. For the purpose of re-examination within 21 days of the first examination. In the intent case the re-examination was carried out on 12-9-1996, as such the said re-examination had been carried out after the expiry of 21 days, that no concealment of facts or mis-statement of facts was ever made by the petitioner as such the recalling of the order, dated 24-9-1996 and initiation of proceedings under section 193, P.P.C. Is unwarranted by law.

3. Conversely, learned Additional Advocate-General has supported the impugned order.

4. A perusal of the record reveals that Faiz Ali injured was initially examined on 16-8-1996 and was re-examined on 12-9-1996. Admittedly, the reexamination has been carried out after the expiry of more than 21 days. According to the instruction referred above re-examination can only be conducted by the Medical Board if constituted within 21 days of the first examination. This being the factual and legal position, the order, dated 24-9-1996 was passed strictly in accordance with law.

There is no question of concealment of facts on the part of Faqir Muhammad as such proceedings under section 193, P.P.C. Against him are also unwarranted by law. Accordingly, the order, dated 29- 9-1996 passed by the District Magistrate. D.G. Khan is declared illegal and void and consequently, the order, dated 24-9-1996 stands restored. With these observations the petition stands disposed of.

Cited by 1 case

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search