51. Search of arrested persons: Whenever a person is arrested by a police-officer under-a warrant which does not provide for the taking of bail or under a warrant, which provides for the taking of bail but the person arrested cannot furnish bail, and

whenever a person is arrested without warrant, or by a private person under a warrant, and cannot legally be admitted to bail, or is unable to furnish bail,

the officer making the arrest or, when the arrest is made by a private person, the police officer to whom he makes over the person arrested, may search such person and place in safe custody all articles, other than necessary wearing-apparel, found upon him.

————-

— Inviolability of dignity of man — Right to privacy — Guarding Mobile Phone Privacy: Unveiling Rights in the Digital Age — Balancing Justice and Privacy: Court-Mandated Mobile Data Retrieval in Criminal Investigations — Scope — For any property recovered on search of an arrested person an appropriate order can only be made by Magistrate concerned — This situation requires that Police officer if wanted to use such mobile/cell phone can request the Magistrate for its analysis in support of allegation in the FIR, and Magistrate after hearing the accused can pass order for examination and extraction of such information which is relevant to the case only, keeping strict regard to Article 14 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. [2024 CCJ 1 = 2024 PCrLJ 1 = 2023 LHC 4087]

— Mode of making searches and arrest — Scope — Judicial approach has to be a conscious in dealing with the cases in which entire testimony hinges upon the evidence of police officials alone — Although provisions of section 103, CrPC are not attracted to the cases of personal search of accused in narcotic cases but where the alleged recovery was made on a road, omission to secure independent mashirs, particularly, in police case cannot be brushed aside lightly by the court — Prime object of section 103, CrPC is to ensure transparency and fairness on the part of police during course of recovery, curb false implication and minimize the scope of foisting of fake recovery upon accused. [2024 CCJ 36 = 2024 PCrLJ 370]

— Using as genuine, forged or counterfeit currency-notes or bank-notes — Search to be made in presence of witnesses — Appreciation of evidence — Benefit of doubt — Scope — The case involves an appellant charged under section 489-B, P.P.C. for allegedly possessing forged or counterfeit currency notes — The prosecution’s case hinges on the recovery of currency notes from the appellant’s possession during a police patrolling operation — However, crucially, none of the prosecution witnesses testified that the appellant had knowledge or reason to believe that the currency notes were fake — Mere possession of forged currency notes is not an offense unless the accused knew or had reason to believe they were forged — Moreover, the prosecution’s reliance on a certificate from the State Bank of Pakistan to prove the authenticity of the currency notes is undermined by delays in sending the notes for verification and the absence of the issuing officer’s testimony — This procedural lapse diminishes the evidentiary value of the certificate — Additionally, there are discrepancies regarding the identification and denomination of the recovered currency notes, which were not mentioned in the charge or confronted to the appellant during interrogation, further weakening the prosecution’s case — Furthermore, there are violations of procedural requirements such as the absence of independent witnesses from the locality during the recovery process, as mandated by section 103, CrPC — The failure to comply with this provision casts doubt on the integrity of the recovery operation — In light of these legal and procedural deficiencies, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt — As a result, the appellant’s appeal is allowed, and the judgment convicting him is set aside, leading to his acquittal and release from custody. [2024 CCJ 32 = 2024 PCrLJ 326]

— Search to be made in presence of witnesses — Scope — The officials making searches, recoveries and arrests, are reasonably required to associate private persons, more particularly in those cases in which presence of private persons is admitted, so as to lend credence to such actions, and to restore public confidence — This aspect of the matter must not be lost sight of indiscriminately and without exception. [2024 CCJ 32 = 2024 PCrLJ 326]

— S. 103 — Search to be made in presence of witnesses — Scope — Where weapon of offence was recovered from a non-residential area, High Court observed that in such situation non-compliance of section 103, CrPC was condonable. [2024 CCJ 25 = 2024 PCrLJ 229]

— Procedure where dispute concerning land, etc., is likely to cause breach of peace — Scope — The main object and purpose of the powers vested under section 145 is to prevent a likely breach of the peace and to maintain the status quo — The parties are provided an opportunity to resolve the dispute regarding the title or right of possession before a competent forum — The most crucial factor for undertaking the proceedings is the likelihood of breach of the peace because of the dispute — The dispute must be in respect of land or water or boundaries thereof and the subject matter must be situated within the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate who has to exercise the powers — The existence of these factors is a pre-requisite for making a preliminary order under sub-section (1) of section 145 and the grounds required to be stated in the order must justify the satisfaction of the Magistrate — The mere existence of a dispute is not sufficient to put the powers in motion — There must be sufficient material giving rise to an imminent danger or a breach of the peace — In the absence of such an apprehension of a breach of the peace the exercise of the power would not be lawful — Moreover, the exercise of powers under section 145 will not be justified if the factor of breach of the peace can be prevented by resorting to powers vested under section 107 of the CrPC — While conducting an inquiry under section 145 the Magistrate does not have the power or jurisdiction to decide either the question of title of property or the lawfulness of the possession — It merely empowers the Magistrate to regulate the possession of the property in dispute temporality in order to avert an apprehension of breach of the peace — The attachment of the property under the second proviso of section 145(4) is subject to the satisfaction of the Magistrate that a case of emergency has been made out — The Magistrate, while exercising powers under section 145, is merely required to declare which one of the parties is entitled to remain in possession because, as already noted, the proceedings do not empower undertaking an inquiry relating to ownership or the right to possess. [2024 SCLR 24 = 2024 SCMR 136 = 2023 SCP 382]

— Procedure where dispute concerning land, etc., is likely to cause breach of peace — Scope — The main object and purpose of the powers vested under section 145 is to prevent a likely breach of the peace and to maintain the status quo — The parties are provided an opportunity to resolve the dispute regarding the title or right of possession before a competent forum — The most crucial factor for undertaking the proceedings is the likelihood of breach of the peace because of the dispute — The dispute must be in respect of land or water or boundaries thereof and the subject matter must be situated within the limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate who has to exercise the powers — The existence of these factors is a pre-requisite for making a preliminary order under sub-section (1) of section 145 and the grounds required to be stated in the order must justify the satisfaction of the Magistrate — The mere existence of a dispute is not sufficient to put the powers in motion — There must be sufficient material giving rise to an imminent danger or a breach of the peace — In the absence of such an apprehension of a breach of the peace the exercise of the power would not be lawful — Moreover, the exercise of powers under section 145 will not be justified if the factor of breach of the peace can be prevented by resorting to powers vested under section 107 of the CrPC — While conducting an inquiry under section 145 the Magistrate does not have the power or jurisdiction to decide either the question of title of property or the lawfulness of the possession — It merely empowers the Magistrate to regulate the possession of the property in dispute temporality in order to avert an apprehension of breach of the peace — The attachment of the property under the second proviso of section 145(4) is subject to the satisfaction of the Magistrate that a case of emergency has been made out — The Magistrate, while exercising powers under section 145, is merely required to declare which one of the parties is entitled to remain in possession because, as already noted, the proceedings do not empower undertaking an inquiry relating to ownership or the right to possess. [2024 SCLR 24 = 2024 SCMR 136 = 2023 SCP 382]

— S. 154 — Police Rules, 1934, R. 24 — Information in cognizable cases — Scope — Conjunctural reading of Section 154 of the Code and Rule 24.1(1) of the Police Rules, 1934 makes it abundantly clear that on receiving the information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence, the same shall culminate in the registration of a criminal case — The legislature by using the word ‘every’ to qualify the word ‘information’, ultimately left no discretion with an SHO to refuse the registration of a criminal case after receiving information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence — The words ‘every information’ clearly postulate that the legislature designedly abstained from further qualifying these words — It can be observed that in Section 154 of the Code, the legislature in its collective wisdom carefully and cautiously used the expression ‘every information’ contrary to Sections 22-A(3)(a) and 54 of the Code wherein the expressions, ‘reasonable complaint’ and ‘credible information’ have been used — Apparently, the use of the words ‘every information’ in Section 154 unlike in Sections 22-A(3)(a) and 54 of the Code is for the reason that the SHO should not have the power to refuse to record the information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence and to register a case thereon on the ground that he is not satisfied with the reasonableness or credibility of the information — In other words, ‘reasonableness’ or ‘credibility’ of the said information is not a condition precedent for the registration of a criminal case — A comparison of the present Section 154 of the Code with those of the earlier Codes indicates that the legislature had intentionally thought it appropriate to employ only the words ‘every information’ without qualifying the said words — An overall reading of all the Codes makes it clear that sine qua non for recording a first information report is that there should be an information and that information must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. [2024 CCJ 34 = 2024 PCrLJ 351 = 2022 LHC 6953]

— Ss. 154 & 157 — Police Rules, 1934, R. 24 — Information in cognizable cases — Procedure where cognizable offence suspected — Scope — Section 157 of the Code read with Rule 24.4 cannot be employed before the registration of a criminal case under Section 154 of the Code — When information of a cognizable offence is received by the SHO, he cannot embark upon an inquiry to examine the reliability or credibility of such information to refuse the registration of a criminal case — He is under a statutory duty to register a criminal case and then to proceed with the investigation, if he has reason to suspect the commission of an offence, which he is empowered under Section 156 to investigate, subject to proviso (b) to Section 157(1) of the Code read with Rule 24.4 of the Rules, whereby an investigating officer has the ample power to dispense with the investigation altogether. [2024 CCJ 34 = 2024 PCrLJ 351 = 2022 LHC 6953]

— Ss. 156 & 157 — Investigation into cognizable cases — Procedure where cognizable cases suspected — Scope — Section 156 of the Code confers the power upon a police officer to investigate a cognizable offence whereas Section 157 lays down the manner, in which that investigation should be carried out — The commencement of investigation by a police officer under Section 157 (1) of the Code is subject to two conditions, firstly, the police officer should have reasons to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence and secondly, the police officer should subjectively satisfy himself as to whether there is sufficient ground for entering on an investigation even before he starts an investigation into the facts and circumstances of the case — Under the provisos (a) & (b) to Section 157 (1) of the Code, there are situations where investigation can be dispensed with — Firstly, when any information as to the commission of a cognizable offence is given against a person by name and case is of a trivial nature, the investigating officer shall not make an investigation on the spot and secondly, where it appears to the officer incharge of police station that there is no sufficient ground for carrying out the investigation — Section 158 of the Code further lays down the self-explanatory procedure to submit a report under Section 157 of the Code. [2024 CCJ 34 = 2024 PCrLJ 351 = 2022 LHC 6953]

— Ss. 154 & 157 — Police Rules, 1934, R. 24 — Information in cognizable cases — Procedure where cognizable offence suspected — Scope — Section 157 of the Code read with Rule 24.4 cannot be employed before the registration of a criminal case under Section 154 of the Code — When information of a cognizable offence is received by the SHO, he cannot embark upon an inquiry to examine the reliability or credibility of such information to refuse the registration of a criminal case — He is under a statutory duty to register a criminal case and then to proceed with the investigation, if he has reason to suspect the commission of an offence, which he is empowered under Section 156 to investigate, subject to proviso (b) to Section 157(1) of the Code read with Rule 24.4 of the Rules, whereby an investigating officer has the ample power to dispense with the investigation altogether. [2024 CCJ 34 = 2024 PCrLJ 351 = 2022 LHC 6953]

— Ss. 156 & 157 — Investigation into cognizable cases — Procedure where cognizable cases suspected — Scope — Section 156 of the Code confers the power upon a police officer to investigate a cognizable offence whereas Section 157 lays down the manner, in which that investigation should be carried out — The commencement of investigation by a police officer under Section 157 (1) of the Code is subject to two conditions, firstly, the police officer should have reasons to suspect the commission of a cognizable offence and secondly, the police officer should subjectively satisfy himself as to whether there is sufficient ground for entering on an investigation even before he starts an investigation into the facts and circumstances of the case — Under the provisos (a) & (b) to Section 157 (1) of the Code, there are situations where investigation can be dispensed with — Firstly, when any information as to the commission of a cognizable offence is given against a person by name and case is of a trivial nature, the investigating officer shall not make an investigation on the spot and secondly, where it appears to the officer incharge of police station that there is no sufficient ground for carrying out the investigation — Section 158 of the Code further lays down the self-explanatory procedure to submit a report under Section 157 of the Code. [2024 CCJ 34 = 2024 PCrLJ 351 = 2022 LHC 6953]

— Cognizance of offences by Magistrate — Power of Court to acquit accused at any stage — Scope — Court of Magistrate is always competent to take cognizance on a negative report but this act never absolves the Court from examining the undeniable or undisputed documents/facts while deciding an application under section 249-A/265-K, CrPC, as the case may be. [2024 CCJ 24 = 2024 PCrLJ 223]

— Complaints to Magistrates — Factors to be considered before issuance of process — Scope — The provisions of sections 202, 203, and 204 of the CrPC require trial courts to conduct a thorough examination of the evidence supporting allegations made against individuals — In this context, the trial court must consider not only the factual basis for the accusations but also the underlying purpose of bringing those charges forward — This includes evaluating whether there is a legitimate objective behind the allegations or if they serve to unjustly target or harass the accused — Moreover, the trial court should assess the possibility of victimization, ensuring that individuals are not subjected to legal actions that could lead to unnecessary distress or humiliation. [PLR 2025 SC 6 = PLD 2025 SC 40 = 2024 SCP 360]

— Complaints to Magistrates — Factors to be considered before issuance of process — Scope — A careful analysis of the provisions of sections 201 and 202 of the CrPC reveals that the purpose of inquiry or investigation under section 202, CrPC is to enable the Court to scrutinize allegations thoroughly, with the aim of protecting a person complained against from being summoned to face frivolous accusations — Section 202 of the CrPC is, in fact, an enabling provision that empowers the Court to conduct an effective inquiry into the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations presented in the complaint — This inquiry serves to help the Court form an opinion as to whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed further — Therefore, the inquiry or investigation under section 202 of the CrPC is not a futile exercise and must be considered by the Court when deciding whether or not to issue process. [PLR 2025 SC 6 = PLD 2025 SC 40 = 2024 SCP 360]

— Complaints to Magistrates — Factors to be considered before issuance of process — Scope — Initiation of process under sections 202 and 204 of the Code depends upon the availability or non-availability of sufficient incriminating material. [PLR 2025 SC 6 = PLD 2025 SC 40 = 2024 SCP 360]

— Complaints to Magistrates — Factors to be considered before issuance of process — Scope — Provisions as contained in sections 202 to 204 of the CrPC, if read together, would show that a proper safeguard has been provided by the legislature by using the words “if any” and “sufficient grounds for any” in section 203 of the Code and accordingly the frivolous and vexatious complaints must be buried at their inception where no prima facie case is made out. [PLR 2025 SC 6 = PLD 2025 SC 40 = 2024 SCP 360]

— Complaints to Magistrates — Factors to be considered before issuance of process — Scope — The provisions of sections 202, 203, and 204 of the CrPC require trial courts to conduct a thorough examination of the evidence supporting allegations made against individuals — In this context, the trial court must consider not only the factual basis for the accusations but also the underlying purpose of bringing those charges forward — This includes evaluating whether there is a legitimate objective behind the allegations or if they serve to unjustly target or harass the accused — Moreover, the trial court should assess the possibility of victimization, ensuring that individuals are not subjected to legal actions that could lead to unnecessary distress or humiliation. [PLR 2025 SC 6 = PLD 2025 SC 40 = 2024 SCP 360]

— Complaints to Magistrates — Factors to be considered before issuance of process — Scope — A careful analysis of the provisions of sections 201 and 202 of the CrPC reveals that the purpose of inquiry or investigation under section 202, CrPC is to enable the Court to scrutinize allegations thoroughly, with the aim of protecting a person complained against from being summoned to face frivolous accusations — Section 202 of the CrPC is, in fact, an enabling provision that empowers the Court to conduct an effective inquiry into the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations presented in the complaint — This inquiry serves to help the Court form an opinion as to whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed further — Therefore, the inquiry or investigation under section 202 of the CrPC is not a futile exercise and must be considered by the Court when deciding whether or not to issue process. [PLR 2025 SC 6 = PLD 2025 SC 40 = 2024 SCP 360]

— Complaints to Magistrates — Factors to be considered before issuance of process — Scope — Initiation of process under sections 202 and 204 of the Code depends upon the availability or non-availability of sufficient incriminating material. [PLR 2025 SC 6 = PLD 2025 SC 40 = 2024 SCP 360]

— Complaints to Magistrates — Factors to be considered before issuance of process — Scope — Provisions as contained in sections 202 to 204 of the CrPC, if read together, would show that a proper safeguard has been provided by the legislature by using the words “if any” and “sufficient grounds for any” in section 203 of the Code and accordingly the frivolous and vexatious complaints must be buried at their inception where no prima facie case is made out. [PLR 2025 SC 6 = PLD 2025 SC 40 = 2024 SCP 360]

— Complaints to Magistrates — Factors to be considered before issuance of process — Scope — The provisions of sections 202, 203, and 204 of the CrPC require trial courts to conduct a thorough examination of the evidence supporting allegations made against individuals — In this context, the trial court must consider not only the factual basis for the accusations but also the underlying purpose of bringing those charges forward — This includes evaluating whether there is a legitimate objective behind the allegations or if they serve to unjustly target or harass the accused — Moreover, the trial court should assess the possibility of victimization, ensuring that individuals are not subjected to legal actions that could lead to unnecessary distress or humiliation. [PLR 2025 SC 6 = PLD 2025 SC 40 = 2024 SCP 360]

— Complaints to Magistrates — Factors to be considered before issuance of process — Scope — A careful analysis of the provisions of sections 201 and 202 of the CrPC reveals that the purpose of inquiry or investigation under section 202, CrPC is to enable the Court to scrutinize allegations thoroughly, with the aim of protecting a person complained against from being summoned to face frivolous accusations — Section 202 of the CrPC is, in fact, an enabling provision that empowers the Court to conduct an effective inquiry into the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations presented in the complaint — This inquiry serves to help the Court form an opinion as to whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed further — Therefore, the inquiry or investigation under section 202 of the CrPC is not a futile exercise and must be considered by the Court when deciding whether or not to issue process. [PLR 2025 SC 6 = PLD 2025 SC 40 = 2024 SCP 360]

— Complaints to Magistrates — Factors to be considered before issuance of process — Scope — Initiation of process under sections 202 and 204 of the Code depends upon the availability or non-availability of sufficient incriminating material. [PLR 2025 SC 6 = PLD 2025 SC 40 = 2024 SCP 360]

— Complaints to Magistrates — Factors to be considered before issuance of process — Scope — Provisions as contained in sections 202 to 204 of the CrPC, if read together, would show that a proper safeguard has been provided by the legislature by using the words “if any” and “sufficient grounds for any” in section 203 of the Code and accordingly the frivolous and vexatious complaints must be buried at their inception where no prima facie case is made out. [PLR 2025 SC 6 = PLD 2025 SC 40 = 2024 SCP 360]

— Complaints to Magistrates — Factors to be considered before issuance of process — Scope — The provisions of sections 202, 203, and 204 of the CrPC require trial courts to conduct a thorough examination of the evidence supporting allegations made against individuals — In this context, the trial court must consider not only the factual basis for the accusations but also the underlying purpose of bringing those charges forward — This includes evaluating whether there is a legitimate objective behind the allegations or if they serve to unjustly target or harass the accused — Moreover, the trial court should assess the possibility of victimization, ensuring that individuals are not subjected to legal actions that could lead to unnecessary distress or humiliation. [PLR 2025 SC 6 = PLD 2025 SC 40 = 2024 SCP 360]

— Complaints to Magistrates — Factors to be considered before issuance of process — Scope — A careful analysis of the provisions of sections 201 and 202 of the CrPC reveals that the purpose of inquiry or investigation under section 202, CrPC is to enable the Court to scrutinize allegations thoroughly, with the aim of protecting a person complained against from being summoned to face frivolous accusations — Section 202 of the CrPC is, in fact, an enabling provision that empowers the Court to conduct an effective inquiry into the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations presented in the complaint — This inquiry serves to help the Court form an opinion as to whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed further — Therefore, the inquiry or investigation under section 202 of the CrPC is not a futile exercise and must be considered by the Court when deciding whether or not to issue process. [PLR 2025 SC 6 = PLD 2025 SC 40 = 2024 SCP 360]

— Complaints to Magistrates — Factors to be considered before issuance of process — Scope — Initiation of process under sections 202 and 204 of the Code depends upon the availability or non-availability of sufficient incriminating material. [PLR 2025 SC 6 = PLD 2025 SC 40 = 2024 SCP 360]

— Complaints to Magistrates — Factors to be considered before issuance of process — Scope — Provisions as contained in sections 202 to 204 of the CrPC, if read together, would show that a proper safeguard has been provided by the legislature by using the words “if any” and “sufficient grounds for any” in section 203 of the Code and accordingly the frivolous and vexatious complaints must be buried at their inception where no prima facie case is made out. [PLR 2025 SC 6 = PLD 2025 SC 40 = 2024 SCP 360]

— Power of Court to acquit accused at any stage — Scope — Section 249-A or 265-K, CrPC are provided by the Code itself therefore the same legally can’t be brushed aside as ‘non-existent’, however, since the same, being in departure to normal course, shall only be exercised when exceptional circumstances justifying the charge to be groundless or that there is no probability of the accused, being guilty of any offence, even if trial is concluded. [2024 CCJ 24 = 2024 PCrLJ 223]

— Power of Court to acquit accused at any stage — Scope — The dismissal of an application under section 249-A or 265-K, CrPC of co-accused shall not be a sufficient ground for dismissal of such like application by other accused of the same case rather criterion of dismissal of such application must always be non-existence of required ingredients i.e ‘charge being groundless’ and ‘non-existence of possibility of accused being guilty of any offence even if case is taken as correct’. [2024 CCJ 24 = 2024 PCrLJ 223]

— Cognizance of offences by Magistrate — Power of Court to acquit accused at any stage — Scope — Court of Magistrate is always competent to take cognizance on a negative report but this act never absolves the Court from examining the undeniable or undisputed documents/facts while deciding an application under section 249-A/265-K, CrPC, as the case may be. [2024 CCJ 24 = 2024 PCrLJ 223]

— Power of Court to acquit accused at any stage — Scope — Section 249-A or 265-K, CrPC are provided by the Code itself therefore the same legally can’t be brushed aside as ‘non-existent’, however, since the same, being in departure to normal course, shall only be exercised when exceptional circumstances justifying the charge to be groundless or that there is no probability of the accused, being guilty of any offence, even if trial is concluded. [2024 CCJ 24 = 2024 PCrLJ 223]

— Power of Court to acquit accused at any stage — Scope — The dismissal of an application under section 249-A or 265-K, CrPC of co-accused shall not be a sufficient ground for dismissal of such like application by other accused of the same case rather criterion of dismissal of such application must always be non-existence of required ingredients i.e ‘charge being groundless’ and ‘non-existence of possibility of accused being guilty of any offence even if case is taken as correct’. [2024 CCJ 24 = 2024 PCrLJ 223]

— Cognizance of offences by Magistrate — Power of Court to acquit accused at any stage — Scope — Court of Magistrate is always competent to take cognizance on a negative report but this act never absolves the Court from examining the undeniable or undisputed documents/facts while deciding an application under section 249-A/265-K, CrPC, as the case may be. [2024 CCJ 24 = 2024 PCrLJ 223]

— S. 342 — Examination of accused — Scope — If any incriminating piece of evidence is not put to an accused in his statement under section 342, Cr.P.C. for his explanation then the same cannot be used against him for his conviction. [2024 CCJ 25 = 2024 PCrLJ 229]

— Suspension of sentence pending appeal — Scope — A remedy for “special leave to appeal” is not an omnibus remedy rather true meanings of special leave are “leave granted on special grounds” and issuance of certificate for fitness to appeal on special grounds is one mode of the grant of special leave to appeal; therefore, when High Court in a criminal case permits to appeal to the Supreme Court from the sentence of High Court on special grounds, the High Court may, in its discretion, suspend the sentence and grant bail pending the appeal — However, if “special leave to appeal” and “leave to appeal” be considered as having no difference, then Supreme Court while pending petition for leave to appeal and after granting leave to appeal has like power under Supreme Court Rules to suspend the execution of any sentence which in turn excludes the application of sub-section (2B) of section 426 Cr.P.C. in such proceedings — Thus, applicability of such sub-section kept confined to the extent of ‘special leave to appeal’ granted by the High Court through a fitness certificate, that is the reason, it is still on the statute book and legislature has not swapped the words “special leave to appeal” with the words “leave to appeal” in sub-section (2B) of 426 Cr.P.C. [2024 CCJ 26 = 2024 PCrLJ 252 = 2023 LHC 5241]

— Suspension of sentence pending appeal — Scope — Sub-section (2B) of 426 Cr.P.C. shall remain applicable only when the High Court certifies that case involves a substantial question of law as to interpretation of the Constitution and a person earns a right of appeal to the Supreme Court which of course is a “special leave to appeal” as mentioned in sub-section (2B) of section 426 Cr.P.C — On the contrary if the High court refuses to issue such certificate, the leave to appeal (not special leave to appeal) shall be available to the aggrieved as mentioned in rule 2 of Order XXIII of Supreme Court Rules, 1980. [2024 CCJ 26 = 2024 PCrLJ 252 = 2023 LHC 5241]

466. Release of lunatic pending investigation or trial.­(1) Whenever an accused person is found to be of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence, the Magistrate or Court, as the case may be, whether the case is one in which bail may be taken or not, may release him on sufficient security being given that he shall be properly taken care of and shall be prevented from doing injury to himself or to any other person, and for his appearance when required before the Magistrate or Court or such officer as the Magistrate or Court appoints in this behalf.

(2) Custody of lunatic. If the case is one in which, in the opinion of the Magistrate or Court, bail should not be taken, or if sufficient security is not given, the Magistrate or Court, as the case may be, shall order the accused to be detained in safe custody in such place and manner as he or it may think fit, and shall report the action taken to the Provincial Government:

Section 466, CrPC, it transpires that the primary course prescribed is to release the accused, who is of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence, on sufficient security while detaining him in safe custody secondary to the primary course — It, therefore, follows that the course of releasing such an accused on sufficient security must be adopted as a rule while the order for detaining him in safe custody is to be made only as an exception — With the deduction of this principle, the matter however does not end — Next comes the question: what may be the circumstances that can justify adopting the exceptional course of detaining the accused in safe custody? — The answer to this question also lies within the provisions of Section 466 — The noticeable point is that while conferring the discretion on the court, by using the word ‘may’, Section 466 provides an inbuilt guidance for the exercise of that discretion by making it conditional on giving sufficient security to properly take care of the accused and to prevent him from doing injury to himself or any other person — These two conditions are the touchstone on the basis of which the court is to exercise its discretion in either way — If keeping in view the facts and circumstances the court forms an opinion that in releasing the accused on bail, there is an apprehension that he would not be properly taken care of or prevented from doing injury to himself or any other person, it can then decline to release him on bail and direct for keeping him in safe custody in such place and manner as it may think fit — The facts and circumstances that are relevant in forming such an opinion by the court may be that no one from the kith and kin of the accused comes forward to give sufficient security for the fulfillment of the said conditions, or that his kith and kin have previously remained unsuccessful in preventing him from doing injury to other persons. [PLR 2024 SC 6 = PLD 2024 SC 75 =2023 SCP 352]

https://pakistankanoon.com/statutes/crpc/s-497/

https://pakistankanoon.com/statutes/crpc/s-498/

— Trial of civilians by courts martial — Prerequisites for S. 549 applicability — Scope — For S. 549 to apply at all, the civilian must be charged with the offence that can be tried either by the ordinary law or a court martial — It is the very charging of the civilian for the offence that alone makes him subject to the Pakistan Army Act, 1952 and hence liable to be handed over to the Army authorities and triable by court martial. [2023 SCLR 31 = 2023 SCMR 1732]

Section 561 A. Saving of inherent power of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

S. 561-A — Inherent power of High Court — Quashment petition — Scope — Where the High Court dismissed the quashment petition under section 561-A, CrPC, primarily on the ground that the Trial Court had already taken cognizance, without assigning any other reason, the Supreme Court observed that it is quite common for such petitions to be filed in two scenarios: either after availing the remedy provided under section 249-A or 265-K, CrPC, as the case may be, or directly in extreme or extraordinary circumstances where there is a clear and perceptible abuse of process that does not justify the initiation of legal proceedings — The Supreme Court noted that the petition was not rejected due to the petitioner’s failure to exhaust an alternate remedy under section 265-K, CrPC, but solely because the Trial Court had taken cognizance — This, in the Court’s view, is neither a lawful justification nor a persuasive reason to dismiss the petition summarily without considering the grounds raised — The core issue should have been whether a prima facie case was made out, warranting the prevention of abuse of process or otherwise securing the ends of justice — Case was remanded for decision afresh. [PLR 2025 SC 8 = PLD 2025 SC 53 = 2024 SCP 419] 

— S. 561-A — Inherent power of High Court — Quashment petition — Scope — It is unequivocally provided under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 that nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power of the High Court to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice — There is no doubt that a High Court can quash a judicial proceeding pending before any subordinate court under section 561-A, CrPC, in order to prevent the abuse of the process of that court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice — At the same time, this inherent jurisdiction cannot be deemed to be an alternative jurisdiction or additional jurisdiction and cannot be exploited to disrupt or impede the procedural law on the basis of presumptive findings or hyper-technicalities — Instead, it is intended to protect and safeguard the interests of justice and to redress grievances of aggrieved persons, for which no other procedure or remedy is provided in the CrPC. [PLR 2025 SC 8 = PLD 2025 SC 53 = 2024 SCP 419] 

— S. 561-A — Inherent power of High Court — Quashment petition — Abuse of process — Scope — The expression “abuse of process” used under Section 561-A, CrPC, connotes an unwarranted or irrational use of legal proceedings or process which also includes the presence of ulterior motives for activating the process for unjustified arrest or groundless criminal prosecution — The essential purposefulness of this doctrine is to foster and safeguard the judicial system, ensuring that it is not misused or blemished — This terminology can be comprehended as a principle that if a Court has jurisdiction to hear a case, it may terminate the prosecution if an abuse of process is floating on the surface on record, with logical reason and probability of harassment, persecution, and unfairness to the opposite side. [PLR 2025 SC 8 = PLD 2025 SC 53 = 2024 SCP 419]