PESHAWAR: Govt fails to notify law officers' appointment
Bureau Report
PESHAWAR, April 3: The provincial government has failed to issue an important notification about the appointment of "officer-in-charge of prosecution" in districts in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code amendments and some other laws.
Legal circles said that the delay in the issuance of the notification had created some legal complications as certain functions of the district magistrate under the CrPC had been assigned to the officer-in-charge of prosecution after the amendments.
In certain cases challans (charge-sheets) could not be submitted before the court as in the laws concerned the words "officer-in-charge of prosecution" have been used.
In August, 2001, the federal government had made amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code and other laws wherein in a number of sections the words "district magistrate" were substituted with "officer-in-charge of prosecution in a district".
After introduction of the devolution plan the offices of the deputy commissioners (district magistrates) ceased to exist on Aug 14, 2001, and functions of the district magistrate were assigned to different offices including that of district nazim and officer-in-charge of prosecution.
Though the district public prosecutor supervises the prosecution services in the district, the government used the term "officer-in-charge", thus creating legal complications.
The amendments in the CrPC were made on Aug 14, 2001, through the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001, (Ordinance No XXXVII of 2001).
Some of the sections in which the words district magistrate were replaced with officer-in-charge of prosecution included sections 196A, 337, 338, 373 and 492.
Previously, under section 337 of the Criminal Procedure Code the district magistrate or the sub-divisional magistrate was empowered to declare an accused person an approver in different categories of the cases.
After the amendment, the officer-in-charge of the prosecution in a district is now empowered to tender pardon to such person at any stage of the investigation or inquiry, or trial of the offence with a view to obtain evidence of that person.
Similarly, under section 373 in the cases tried by the sessions court, the court had to forward a copy of the judgment to the district magistrate.
After the amendment the judgment copy has to be sent to the officer-in-charge of prosecution, however, as there is no notified officer-in-charge, therefore the courts do not send copy to the district public prosecutor.
A lawyer told Dawn that although it was understood that the district prosecutor was the official in charge of prosecution in a district, but for fulfilling legal requirement it was necessary that a notification should be issued for declaring him or her as an officer-in-charge.
