IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT:  
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL  
MR. JUSTICE FAISAL ARAB 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
 
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.163 OF 2020 
(Against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 
28.01.2020 passed in Crl. Misc. No.49574-TA of 2019) 
 
 
Muhammad Sultan 
: 
 
 
… Petitioner 
Versus 
Muhammad Raza & others 
: 
 
 
… Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner  
: 
Chaudhary Abdul Khalid Thind, ASC 
Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
 
For the (State)  
: 
N.R 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 
12.06.2020 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J:- Criminal 
petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan, 1973 has been filed, seeking leave to appeal against the order 
dated 28.01.2020 of Lahore High Court, Lahore in Crl. Miscellaneous 
No.49574-TA/2019 in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice.  
2. 
The facts necessitated to file instant petition are that petitioner 
lodged a “complaint” against the respondents titled as:-   
 “Muhammad Sultan vs, Sabir Hussain and 14 others” 
before the learned Addl: Sessions Judge, Tala Gang, District Chakwal. 
The said “complaint” was filed with the allegation of extra-judicial killing of 
son of the petitioner by the respondents who are police officials under 
section 302/364/109/149 PPC read with section 156 of Police Order 2002. 
The learned trial court took the cognizance of the offence and as such 
Criminal Petition No.163/2020 
-:2:-
issued process against the respondents. During pendency of the aforesaid 
“complaint”, the respondents moved an application before Lahore High 
Court, Lahore under section 526/561-A Cr.P.C with a prayer to transfer 
the trial of said “complaint” from the court of learned Addl: Sessions 
Judge, Tala Gang to any other court of competent jurisdiction at Lahore. 
The said application was adjudicated and it was allowed by a Single 
Bench of High Court vide order dated 28.01.2020. The learned Single 
Bench ordered to withdraw the trial of the said “complaint” from the court 
of learned Addl: Sessions Judge, Tala Gang, to be entrusted to learned 
Addl: Sessions Judge-I, Lahore. 
3. 
 
Perusal of the “complaint” lodged by the petitioner discloses 
that the petitioner who himself is resident of District Sargodha was having 
close ties with the respondent No.1 however the relations became 
strained due to reasons substantiated in the aforesaid “complaint”. As per 
allegations contained in “complaint”, it is alleged that on 26.06.2013 at 
about 12:00 (midnight), two sons of the petitioner namely Muhammad 
Nasir and Muhammad Tariq were taken into custody by a raiding party 
comprises of police officials arrayed as respondents No.1 to 14 from Chak 
No.17 North, Tehsil Bhalwal District Sargodha. Muhammad Asif, third son 
of the petitioner was also taken into custody by the respondents on 
26.06.2013 at about “Fajr Wala” from the precincts of village Malikwal 
adjacent to Tala Gang. In this connection, a Writ Petition No.17016/2013 
was filed before Lahore High Court, Lahore. All three sons of the petitioner 
were allegedly kept in Police Station Defence─B, Lahore. During the 
period of their detention, son of the petitioner namely Muhammad Asif was 
separated from others thereafter he was taken to an unknown place where 
he was done to death while causing firearm injuries on various part of his 
body. The allegation further discloses that the death of Muhammad Asif 
Criminal Petition No.163/2020 
-:3:-
was result of conspiracy hatched by respondent No.1 in collusion with 
respondent No.6. In this connection, a case bearing FIR No.311/2013 
dated 30.06.2013 offence under section 392 PPC was also got registered 
with Police Station Defence─B Lahore at the instance of respondents.  
4. 
 
While opening his address at the very outset, learned 
counsel for the petitioner argued that the order impugned before this Court 
is bad, illegal hence not sustainable in the eyes of law. Further contends 
that the occurrence had initiated the moment two sons of the petitioner 
were taken into custody from village Chak No.17 North Tehsil Bhalwal 
whereas the third son of the petitioner was also taken into custody from 
village Malikwal adjacent to Tehsil Tala Gang District Chakwal. Contends 
that to assume jurisdiction for the purpose of trial, it is the basic law that it 
commence with the initiation of commission of an offence hence, this 
aspect was totally ignored by High Court while passing the order of 
transfer of the trial of the “complaint” from learned Addl: Sessions Judge 
Tala Gang to learned Addl: Sessions Judge-I, Lahore. The learned 
counsel for the petitioner has shown serious apprehension to the safety 
and security of the petitioner while pursuing this case at Lahore especially 
when all the respondents are police officials and they are also posted over 
there. The anxiety of the learned counsel has further extended that he 
would not avail justice in the given circumstances.  
5. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel and gone through the 
record.  
6. 
 
There is no denial to this fact that the death of son of the 
petitioner was reported within the local limits of Police Station Defence─B, 
Lahore, and in this regard, a case bearing FIR No.311/2013 dated 
30.06.2013 offence under section 392 PPC was also registered with said 
police station. Post-mortem examination of son of the petitioner was 
Criminal Petition No.163/2020 
-:4:-
conducted at Lahore. In this connection, all the witnesses are also 
residents of Lahore. As per version of the prosecution, it is mentioned in 
the “complaint” that the sons of the petitioner were allegedly abducted 
from two distinct places on two different occasions i.e. on 26.06.2013 and 
29.06.2013 respectively. However, they were kept in illegal confinement in 
Police Station Defence─B at Lahore. There is no denial to this fact from 
the prosecution version that son of the petitioner was allegedly done to 
death on the following day by a brutal act of the respondents. A 
constitutional petition was filed however order of the same was not placed 
on the record. We have noticed with concern that despite of a serious 
allegation of extra-judicial killing against the respondent, the petitioner 
adopted the recourse of law while filing “complaint” before the trial court 
with inordinate delay of more than three years. 
7. 
 
A legal question has been raised qua the jurisdiction of the 
court and venue of trial as per law. Chapter XV Part VI of the Criminal 
Procedure Code deals with “Jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts in Inquiry 
and Trials”. Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure relates to 
general principle of jurisdiction & venue of trial which is reproduced as 
under: - 
“177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial. Every offence 
shall ordinary be inquired in and tried by a Court within the 
local limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed”.  
 
The language of the said provision is explicit in its context hardly leaving 
any ambiguity qua the interpretation with reference to jurisdiction and 
venue of the trial in ordinary circumstances however this principle has 
certain exceptions which are established from the bare reading of 
provision of section 179 & 180 Cr.P.C. To evaluate the exceptions of the 
general principle qua jurisdiction and venue of trial, provision of section 
179 Cr.P.C is reproduced as under: - 
Criminal Petition No.163/2020 
-:5:-
“179. Accused triable in district where act is done or 
where consequences ensues. When a person is accused 
of the commission of any offence by reason of anything 
which had been done, and of any consequence which has 
ensued, such offence may be inquired into or tried by a 
Court within the limits of whose jurisdiction any such thing 
has been done, or any such consequence has ensued.”  
 
8. 
 
Bare perusal of the language of the aforesaid provision 
depicts that if there is any departure from the general principle qua 
jurisdiction and venue of trial, two aspects are to be evaluated for the 
proper determination such as: - 
i. 
Commission of an offence.  
ii. 
Commission of an act and other consequences 
ensued. 
 
From the careful perusal of the language of the aforesaid provision, it is 
crystal clear that this provision has extended the limits of venue while 
classifying the principles to assume jurisdiction to take cognizance of an 
offence for the purpose of trial. We have observed that in the instant case, 
the controversy in between the parties relating to the venue of the trial. 
The prosecution itself is not certain about it because from the perusal of 
the “complaint”, the allegation of abduction had taken place from two 
distinct places whereas the jurisdiction and venue has been assailed by 
the prosecution at Tala Gang which itself create doubt qua the 
seriousness of the prosecution. As far as the place where the son of the 
petitioner was allegedly done to death there is no ambiguity that the 
offence of alleged murder of son of petitioner was committed at Lahore 
within the local limits of Police Station Defence─B Lahore. Post-mortem 
examination of son of the petitioner was also conducted at Lahore 
whereas the witnesses mentioned in the calendar of witnesses are 
residents of Lahore. All these facts are fully covered by the second part of 
section 179 Cr.P.C coming within the ambit of “ensued consequences”. 
This aspect was never denied by either of the party. We when evaluated 
Criminal Petition No.163/2020 
-:6:-
the facts and circumstances brought before us and juxtaposed them on 
the judicial parlance, we are of the considered view that impugned order 
by learned Single Bench of High Court was passed in its true perspective 
squarely in the spirit of law of land, therefore, the transfer of trial of 
“complaint” and entrusting the same to the court of learned Addl: Sessions 
Judge-I, Lahore was well within the parameter of the law hence, needs no 
exception. This petition is devoid of any legal force, therefore, the same is 
dismissed.  
9. 
 
Before parting with the order, we have observed that the 
“complaint” was lodged way back on 12.11.2016, hence considerable time 
has already elapsed, therefore, we cannot loose sight of this aspect 
hence, we direct the learned trial court to expedite the proceeding before it 
and decide the lis preferably within three months from receipt of the order 
on merits with independent application of mind without being influenced by 
any observation of this Court.  
10. 
 
The Senior Superintendent of Police (Operation), Lahore is 
directed to provide adequate security to the petitioner during trial.  
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad,  
12.06.2020 
Approved for reporting. 
Syed Rashid Maqsood