Citation Name : 2007 YLR 1193 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : NASEER AHMAD GHUMAN

Side Opponent : JAMIA MASJID BAGHDADI HANFI RIZVI BRAILVI (REGD.)
---S. 114 & O. XLVII---Police Order (22 of 2002), Art. 18(6)---Review petition---
Investigation---To ask for fair investigation, was the right of each and every
citizen---If accused had been asking for the production of some further evidence
in his defence during the investigation, he could not be deprived of the same as
the purpose of investigation was to collect evidence and the courts had to decide
about the guilt or otherwise of accused on the basis of evidence---direction of
High Court in Intra-Court appeal not to consider the portion of the order of
Single Judge of the High Court for submission of challan within a week, was
outcome of whole order---No order was passed against petitioner at his back as
alleged by hint---No ground having been made out for review of the order,
petition was dismissed.

Citation Name : 2007 PLD 269 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD AKHTAR
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, ANTI-CORRUPTION
ESTABLISHMENT, MULTAN
---S.5---Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment Rules, 1985, R.15(1)(a)-Penal Code
(XLV of 1860), S.409---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.173 & 265-K---
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Inquiry
conducted against accused/petitioners by Anti-Corruption Establishment---
Order for submission of challan befor e Court of competent jurisdiction---
Accused/petitioners/public servants were booked under S.409, P.P.C. read with
S.5 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 by Anti-Corruption Establishment on
application of authorities alleging therein that the for mer had misappropriated
certain amounts by awarding fake leases in favour of their own clerks and
prayed for recovery of misappropriated amounts, from them (petitioners)---
Petitioners contended that three officers of Anti-Corruption Establishment who
conducted investigation recommended for dropping of inquiry against them but
Additional Director Anti-Corruption directed the concerned quarter to prepare
challan and submit the same in Court of competent jurisdiction---Petitioners
contended that under Rule 15(1)(a) of Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment
Rules, 1985, on completion of investigation, if allegations were not established,
the case was to be dropped and that order of Additional Director Anti-
Corruption was illegal and unlawful---Validity---Additional Director Anti-
Corruption had ultimate authority to accept reports of his subordinates or to do
otherwise and on the basis of material he came to conclusion that
recommendation of dropping of case was not justified and keeping in view the
evidence on record he approved judicial action---Rule 15(1)(a) of Punjab Anti-
Corruption Rules, 1985 was not mandatory as no consequence had been
provided for non-compliance of said Rule---Statute, as a general rule, was
understood to be directory when it contained matter merely of direction but not
when those direction s were followed up by express provision that in default of
following them, the facts were to be null and void---Disobedience of Act, if it was
directory, did not entail any invalidity---Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment
Rules, 1985 being not an Act of Legislature and having been made by Executive
Authorities could not override parent law under which police was hound to
submit challan under S.173, Cr.P.C, whatever result of investigation might be,
the relevant Court would be authorized to agree or differ with the said report---
Additional Director was under no circumstances bound to drop inquiry in any
situation and it was in his discretion to decide the basis of evidence to drop
proceedings or not---Additional Director had, vide his order, only given
direction to submit challan and after its submission petitioners would be having
remedy of filing application under S.265-K, Cr.P.C.---No occasion, at such a
stage, was there to interfere with order of Additional Director Anti-Corruption---
Constitutional petitions were dismissed.

Citation Name : 2006 YLR 2713 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SAFDAR
Side Opponent : DIRECTOR ANTI-CORRUPTION ESTABLISHMENT, PUNJAB
---S. 173---Establishment of Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, (1of
1983), Arts.9 & 14---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.420, 486 & 471---Prevention of
Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2) ---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---
Constitutional petition---Complainant got registered F.I.R. against
accused/petitioner regarding issuance of incorrect "Fard Malkiat " by
accused/petitioner---Subsequently matter became sub judice befor e Civil
Court---On a complaint filed by complainant/respondent, Ombudsman directed
complainant to approach Director General Anti-Corruption Establishment---As
matter was not finally concluded complainant again approached Ombudsman
who re-issued direction to respondents/ officials of Anti-Corruption
Establishment to re-investigate the matter---Petitioner/ accused challenged the
order of Ombudsman as to re-investigation of the matter through writ petition,
raising plea that order was passed by the Ombudsman without affor ding him an
opportunity of being heard---Validity ---Case of the petitioner/accused needed a
factual inquiry which the High Court could not undertake in constitutional
jurisdiction---Accused/petitioner failed to prove that re-investigation had caused
any prejudice to accused---Multiple investigations could be carried out in
criminal cases even after submission of report under S.173, Cr. P. C. and fresh
challan could also be submitted---Criminal proceedings were not barred in
presence of civil proceedings rather both types of proceedings could be
continued simultaneously---Accused/ petitioner's contention that Ombudsman's
order was passed without affor ding accused/petitioner an opportunity of
hearing was without for ce as requirement of an opportunity to be heard befor e
adverse order was passed, did not in all situations mean giving of personal
hearing.

Citation Name : 2006 MLD 1492 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : GAHNA KHAN
Side Opponent : State
---S.173---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.161, 162 & 419---Prevention of Corruption
Act (II of 1947), S.5---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 Constitutional
petition---submission of supplementary challan ---Trial Court, after going
through data available on record, being satisfied about involvement of
petitioner/accused for commission of offence, had directed the Agency to submit
supplementary report under S.173, Cr.P.C. against petitioner for the offence
under Ss.161 & 162, P.P.C.---Validity---Whenever a matter would come to the
Court for taking cognizance, the Court would take cognizance of the whole of
the matter and not only against accused sent for trial---If Trial Court was
satisfied about the involvement of petitioner, then it was within
cognizance/jurisdiction of the Trial Court to summon him as well to face trial
irrespective of the fact that he was not shown as accused in the report under
S.173, Cr.P.C.---direction of Trial Court to the Agency for submission of a
supplementary challan against petitioner and his co-accused, was not
justifiable---If the Trial Court was satisfied that sufficient material was on record
to proceed against, petitioner, Trial Court, after taking cognizance of the matter
upon the report already submitted by Agency, could summon petitioner to face
trial---Impugned order to the extent of direction to the Authority for submission
of supplementary report against petitioner, was set aside, with that modification
in the impugned order, constitutional petition was disposed of.

Citation Name : 2006 MLD 1371 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : IKHLAQUE AHMAD
Side Opponent : State
---Ss. 409, 420, 468 & 471---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5(2)---
Appreciation of evidence---Remand of case---Case was fit for remand and re-
investigation to unearth the truth and to put to trial the real culprits---While
setting aside impugned judgment, matter was remanded to the Trial Court by
the High Court with direction to send case to Director, Anti-Corruption
Establishment for fresh investigation/ inquiry to get hold of all real culprits and
submit fresh challan ---Such exercise was directed to be completed within
specified period and after submission of challan , Trial Court was to proceed
with the matter expeditiously and conclude case within specified period.

Citation Name : 2006 PCRLJ 518 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : Ch. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF
Side Opponent : State
--Ss. 561-A, 190 & 173---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.447, 511 & 506/34---
Quashing of order---Impugned order passed by the Magistrate on the report
submitted by the Investigating Officer under S.173, Cr.P.C. was surely an
arbitrary order, as it did not indicate that the Magistrate, while passing the same
had considered the material collected during investigation, nor did it contain any
reason for disagreeing with the opinion of the Investigating Officer---direction
issued to the Investigating Officer by the Magistrate for submission of challan
also was not the requirement of law---If the Investigating Officer had not
submitted the report on the pro for ma specified by the Government, Magistrate
could ask him to submit the report on such pro for ma, befor e entertaining it
and passing an order---However, the direction for submission of challan by
itself would not affect the legality of further proceedings---Even an
administrative order if found arbitrary could be quashed by High Court in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under S.561-A, Cr.P.C.---Impugned order was
consequently quashed with the direction to the Magistrate to pass a proper order
on the report submitted by the Investigating Officer after having considered the
same in accordance with law.

Citation Name : 2005 YLR 1363 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Side Appellant : SADO KHAN KAKAR
Side Opponent : State
--Ss. 4/5---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 561-A, 190(3), 193(1) & 204---
Quashing of order---Sessions Court's order whereby the accused was ordered to
be taken into custody and committed to Jail on having been produced befor e it
pursuant to issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest, was sought to be
quashed---Specific allegation about cultivation of poppy crops by the accused
was made in the F.I.R. in positive terms which prima facie, had connected him
with the commission of the offence---Said report was not based on any secret
infor mation---Trial Court was not bound to accept or concur with the opinion of
the Investigating Officer or the result of investigation whereby the accused
nominated in the F.I.R. was found innocent or not, the actual person who had
cultivated poppy crops---Cognizance of the offence had since been taken by the
Magistrate on the report submitted in the for m of incomplete challan under
S.190(3), Cr.P.C. and not of the accused, Sessions Court therefor e was quite
legally justified to issue coercive process against the accused nominated in the
F.I.R., after having taken cognizance of the offence under S.193(1), Cr.P.C. in
respect of the case sent to it by the Magistrate---Placing of accused in column
No.2 of the challan after having been found innocent in investigation was
inconsequential---direction by the Trial Court for submission s of the
supplementary challan , therefor e, did not nullify the effect of its taking
cognizance of the offence including the issuance of process against the
nominated accused---Procuring attendance of accused by issuing non-bailable
warrant of arrest was permissible within the meaning of S.204, Cr.P.C.---
Observation recorded by the Trial Court in the impugned order that sufficient
evidence was available against the accused connecting him with the commission
of the crime, was not conclusive but only tentative in nature having no material
effect on the evidence yet to be adduced at the trial, nor such a tentative
observation in any way amounted to prejudging of the criminal liability of the
accused---Impugned order did not suffer from any legal infirmity---Petition was
dismissed accordingly.

Citation Name : 2005 YLR 3127 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUHABBAT ISLAM
Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/ JUSTICE OF PEACE
---Ss. 302/324/148/149/447/337-A (ii)/337-F(v) --- Criminal Procedure Code (V
of 1898), Ss. 22-A & 22-B---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---
Constitutional petition ---Interference by Justice of Peace in the judicial functions
of the Trial Court---Validity---Main murder case was pending in the Trial Court
after the submission of the challan by the police, when on the application of
accused moved under Ss.22-A & 22-B, Cr.P.C. Justice of Peace had given certain
direction s to the Investigating Officer for making detailed investigation in
respect of the cross-version, by means of the impugned order---Even earlier on
the move of the accused Justice of Peace had directed the police to record their
cross-version and investigate the matter---If accused were not satisfied with the
result of investigation, they could have moved the higher Authority to transfer
the investigation, but they had no right to again move the Justice of Peace for
recording the cross-version afresh---Trial Court after the submission of the
challan had taken the cognizance of the case and it could pass appropriate orders
relating to the matter and during pendency of the trial any order passed by the
Justice of Peace under S.22-A and 5.22-B, Cr.P.C. which was an executive order,
would amount to interference in the judicial proceedings, which could not be
allowed to continue as in this way the trial in a criminal case would never come
to its logical end---Impugned order was consequently set aside being without
jurisdiction---Constitutional petition was accepted accordingly.

Citation Name : 2005 MLD 1504 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : HALEEM YOUSAF alias CH. PERVAIZ
Side Opponent : State
--S. 498---Offence of Zina (Enfor cement of Hudood) Ordinance (VII of 1979),
S.15---Pre-arrest bail, grant of---Accused was holding double nationality---
Accused left for abroad after grant of bail as challan was not submitted in the
Court---On submission of challan notices were issued to accused but he failed to
appear on which he was proceeded under Ss.87/88, Cr.P.C. and was declared
proclaimed offender--Contention of accused was that. he proceeded abroad on
assurance of his counsel for posting an intimation on submission of challan and
his absence was neither deliberate nor wilful---Accused on direction of High
Court surrendered his passport---Accused was granted bail on merit by Trial
Court---Accused who was a national of Netherlands also, his proceeding abroad
on the assurance of his counsel could not be doubted---Absence of accused, could
not be termed as deliberate---Pre-arrest bail of accused was confirmed, in
circumstance.

Citation Name : 2003 MLD 948 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP

Side Appellant : ABDUR RAZAQ
Side Opponent : THE STATE
---Ss.497, 167 & 344---Prohibition (Enfor cement of Hadd) Order (4 of 1979),
Arts.3/4---Bail---Conduct of the Investigating Agency was highly deplorable
which had delayed the submission of the challan in the Court for a long time
without any justification and despite repeated clear direction s in this behalf---
Prosecution had failed to abide by the law and the rules so laid by the superior
Courts---Magistrates and other Courts at the District level were not faithfully
observing the requirements of Ss.167 & 344, Cr.P.C. thus paving the way for the
police to withhold the challan from the Court for longer period at their whims
and wishes---Accused had an indefeasible right to get speedy trial and any
unnecessary delay at the investigation stage was bound to cause delay in the
conclusion of the trial denying such right to him---Any expression of opinion on
the grounds urged for bail at such stage would have certainly prejudiced the
prosecution case at trial, which had already commenced--Bail was declined to
accused in circumstances---Trial Court in the interest of justice was directed to
conclude the trial within two months, otherwise the accused would be deemed to
have been released on bail by the High Court---Bail application was disposed of
accordingly.

Citation Name : 2003 YLR 1097 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD IQBAL
Side Opponent : INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE
----S. 324---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.173---Constitution of Pakistan
(1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition--Despite the investigation having been
completed in the case up to the level of I.-G. Police, the matter was statedly being
prolonged with mala fide intention just to cause pressure upon the petitioner for
compromise---direction for submission of challan in the Court though had been
given about one year back, yet no interim report was even sent by the local police
to the Ilaqa Judicial Magistrate, otherwise he might have commenced the trial
and in this way the petitioner could be saved from the financial burden of
travelling hither and thither--Sessions Judge, in circumstances, was directed to
hold an inquiry to find out as to who was responsible for not having submitted
the interim report as required under S.173, Cr. P. C. and also recommend for an
action against the defaulter---Sessions Judge was also directed to order for
submission of the interim report in the Court within shortest possible time---
Constitutional petition was disposed of with the said direction s.

Citation Name: 2002 PCRLJ 549 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP

Side Appellant : SHEIKH ZAHOOR-UD-DIN
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860),
Ss.409/420/468/471---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S.5(2)---Bail,
grant of---Prosecution was twice directed for submission of challan against the
accused, once by the Supreme Court and then by the High Court, but the
prosecution did not comply with the said direction s---Even at time of hearing of
bail application the prosecution could not submit the challan against the
accused---Failure of the prosecution to comply with the direction s of the
Supreme Court and the High Court, was a good ground for the release of the
accused on bail---Accused way admitted to bail in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2002 PCRLJ 432 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : SHAUKAT HUSSAIN
Side Opponent : THE STATE
Pakistan Penal Code ----Ss. 337-H, 319 & 302---Criminal Procedure Code (V of
1898), Ss.439 & 561-A---Appreciation of evidence---Inherent powers of the High
Court, exercise of---Initially case against the accused was registered under S.337-
H, P.P.C. and subsequently during the investigation S.337-H, P.P.C. was
substituted for S.319, P.P.C.---After submission of challan the Magistrate
empowered under S.30, Cr.P.C., framed charge against the accused under S.319,
P.P.C. and proceeded with the trial--Subsequently the Magistrate referred the
case to the Court of Session as according to him .he had no jurisdiction to try the
case---On said reference. the Sessions Judge entrusted the case to Additional
Sessions Judge who framed the charge against the accused under S.302, P.P.C.
and proceeded with the case---Application for sending the case to the Court of
Magistrate Section 30, Cr.P.C. having been dismissed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, the accused had filed petition under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. which had been
converted by the High Court into a revision--Courts below had failed to
appreciate the fact that S.31S P.P.C which deals with the cases relating to Qatl-e-
Khata, was art independent offence and had no nexus with S.302, P.P.C. which
deals with cases relating to Qatl-e-Amd---Magistrate who had enhanced powers
to hear cases under S.30, Cr.P.C. would be competent to try all the cases which
were not punishable with death---Additional Sessions Judge lead wrongly
charged the accused under S.302, P.P.C. as no material was available to attract
the provisions of S.302; P.P.C.---Orders passed by th8 Courts below were set
aside with direction to send back the case to the Judicial Magistrate having
powers under S.30, Cr.P.C. who would proceed with the case accordingly.

Citation Name : 2001 YLR 263 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : AZIZ ULLAH KHAN
Side Opponent : S.H.O., POLICE STATION CITY, MIANWALI
Pakistan Penal Code ----Ss.302/324/379/411---Criminal Procedure Code (V of
1898), S.173---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 --- Constitutional
petition---submission of challan in the Court---Accused had sought a direction
from High Court to the S.H.O. to submit the challan according to his objective
findings-- Report of the District Attorney showed that the offence under S.302, P.
P. C. was made out, but at the same time police had given the opinion that the
offence under S.322, P. P. C. was made out and the challan should be submitted
under that provision---District Attorney under S.173, Cr. P. C. was empowered to
submit the challan befor e the Court of competent jurisdiction and he was duty-
bound to carefully examine the statements, and the documents sought to be
produced by the prosecution during the trial and also to examine the nature of
the offence committed by the accused---District Attorney was fully competent
and had the lawful authority to convert the challan into the offence which
according to his opinion prima faice had been committed, if a wrong provision
had been mentioned in the challan by the police---Police, however, could not be
given the power to decide the nature of the offence and to submit the challan in
the Court of its choice---District Attorney was not bound by the finding of police
and he being the legal expert was empowered to decide the nature of the offence
and choose the Court for submission of the challan ---Constitutional petition
was consequently dismissed with the direction to the District Attorney to submit
the challan befor e the Sessions Court which would decide at the time of framing
of charge the relevant provision of the Penal Code.

Citation Name: 2000 PCRLJ 1644 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : ANWAR-UL-HAQ
Side Opponent : DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, LAHORE
RANGE, LAHORE
Drugs Act 1976 ----Ss. 11, 22, 23, 27 & 30---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898),
S.561-A---Sale of drug after its expiry date---Allegation against accused was that
he sold medicine after its expiry date---Alleged offence prima facie fell under
S.23(1)(vi) of Drugs Act, 1976, punishment for which as provided under S.27(4)
of the said Act was five years' imprisonment and fine--Offence was non-
cognizable in view of S.30(2) of the Act and under S.30(3), same was triable by
Drug Court---Registration of case against accused at the direction of Assistant
Commissioner and raid conducted at medical store of the accused by Assistant
Commissioner alongwith Executive Magistrate and investigation by Police as
well as submission of challan , was devoid of legal authority and without
jurisdiction.

Citation Name : 2000 MLD 1935 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ASHIQ
Side Opponent : SPECIAL JUDGE, SUPPRESSION OF TERRORIST
ACTIVITIES, BAHAWALPUR
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----S. 173---Penal Code (XLV of 1860),
S.302/148/149---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional
petition---Discharge of accused on police report by Trial Court after taking
cognizance of the case ---Validity--Trial Court had initially summoned all the
accused and distributed the necessary copies of statements to them with a view
to conduct the trial---Case -had also been fixed for framing of the charge---Court
did not choose to await submission of the complete challan and it consciously
proceeded to commence the trial on the basis of the interim report---Trial Court,
thus, had already taken cognizance of the offence and it was no longer open to it
to entertain a fresh police report and discharge the accused---Impugned order
was consequently set aside with the direction to Trial Court to proceed with the
trial of all the accused including the discharged accused in accordance with law.

Citation Name : 1997 MLD 2094 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD JAMIL
Side Opponent : S.H.O., P.S. AHMADPUR, DISTRICT SHEIKHUPURA
Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) ----Ss.169, 170 & 173 --- Penal Code (XLV of
1860), S.435 --- submission Of challan --- Investigation Officer after completing
investigation in case, submitted challan against accused to prosecution branch
with the request to submit Same befor e competent Court for its trial, but
prosecution branch did not submit challan before Court and instead, Assistant
Advocate-General, directed Investigation Officer to get accused discharged from
case as according to his opining prosecution case was highly doubtful and
merited discharge of accused-- -Investigating Officer has to submit report to a
Magistrate competent to take cognizance, even if, according to his investigation
no sufficient evidence or reasonable ground or suspicion was for med against
accused to justify for warding challan --- Investigating Officer, on completion of
investigation, was duty bound to submit challan without unnecessary delay
befor e competent Court --- If in the opinion of Assistant Advocate-General
prosecution case was highly doubtful and merited discharge of accused from
competent Court, Investigation Officer, would not be debarred to re-investigate
case --- Even if Investigation Officer had submitted challan , nothing was in law
to prevent Investigating officer from submitting a subsequent report in
supersession of his earlier report under S. 173, Cr. P. C. on his own motion or on
direction s of higher Authorities-- No justification thus existed in not submitting
challan in case, in circumstances.

Citation Name : 1996 PLD 306 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Side Appellant : HALEEM SHAH
Side Opponent : THE STATE
West Pakistan Arms Ordinance 1965 S. 13-D ---Criminal Procedure Code (V of
1898), 8s. 169 & 439 --- Trial Court after submission of challan by the police
immediately took cognizance of the case ---Subsequent to that there was no scope
for entertaining a report under S. 169, Cr. P.C. and there was no provision of law
for allowing the same at that stage --- instead of deciding the case on merits Trial
Court passed the impugned order releasing the accused under S. 169, Cr.P.C. on
the report of prosecution --- Said order of Trial Court was not only in direct
conflict with its earlier order and amounted to its review, but was also
misconceived and unwarranted by law and the same was consequently set aside
with the direction to Trial Court to proceed with the case and dispose it of in
accordance with law --- Revision petition was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name : 1994 PCRLJ 1375 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : ALLAH YAR
Side Opponent : S.H.O
Pakistan Penal Code ------S. 302/148/149/109---Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
Art.199---Constitutional petition---Case against accused respondents had already
been cancelled and no direction for holding fresh investigation and submission
of challan in the case could be issued---Petitioner, if so advised, could file a
private complaint against the accused under S.190, Cr.P.C.---Constitutional
petition was disposed of accordingly.

Citation Name : 1970 PCRLJ 837 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ASIF RANJHA
Side Opponent : SULTAN ALI
Letters Patent (Lahore) ---Art. 22-High Court, jurisdiction of-Police withholding
submission of challan -sheet although a prima facie case made out-Article 22 of
Letters Patent (Lahore), held, attracted also to a concluded investigation and not
limited to a direction for preliminary investigation-High Court can direct
transfer of investigation from one officer to another.