Lahore High Court Sets Aside Premature Order in Sexual Assault Case, Emphasizes Proper Trial Procedure  

Islamabad 28-02-2025: In a significant ruling, the Lahore High Court has set aside an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chunian, which prematurely transferred a case under Section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) without framing charges. The Court ruled that such a decision could only be made after the trial had commenced, reinforcing the importance of strict adherence to procedural law under the Anti-Rape (Investigation & Trial) Act, 2021.  

The case originated from [FIR No. 453/2022], filed by Petitioner at Police Station City Chunian, District Kasur, alleging an offense under Section 354 PPC (assault or use of criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty). The Challan report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted to the Magistrate (Section-30), Chunian, who referred the matter to the Sessions Judge, Kasur, based on the Anti-Rape Act, 2021, which governs trials for sexual offenses.  

The Sessions Judge further transferred the case to the Additional Sessions Judge, Chunian, who, without framing charges, ruled that Section 354 PPC was not a scheduled offense under the Act and sent the case back to the Magistrate for trial of “remaining offenses.” However, as no other offenses were charged in the FIR, this order was legally flawed.  

The Lahore High Court bench, comprising Mr. Justice Muhammad Waheed Khan and Mr. Justice Farooq Haider, analyzed the case in light of Section 16(3) of the Anti-Rape (Investigation & Trial) Act, 2021, which states that a Special Court can determine whether an offense is scheduled only “in the course of a trial” meaning after charges have been framed.  

The Court relied on precedents set by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, particularly:  

1. Haq Nawaz & Others Vs. The State (2000 SCMR 785): Establishing that trial begins only after framing of charge.  
2. Niaz Ahmed Vs. Aijaz Ahmed (PLD 2024 Supreme Court 1152): Holding that taking cognizance of an offense is not equivalent to commencement of trial.   

Since charges had not yet been framed in the present case, the Additional Sessions Judge’s ruling was premature and beyond jurisdiction, leading to its annulment.  

The Lahore High Court emphasized the principle of procedural propriety, invoking the legal maxim:  

The Court criticized the failure to adhere to the prescribed legal framework, noting that when the law provides a specific procedure for determining an offense’s classification, Courts must not bypass it.  

 Final Verdict and Orders:  

1. The impugned order dated 30.08.2023 was declared unlawful and set aside.  
2. The matter was remanded to the Additional Sessions Judge, Chunian, with instructions to reconsider the case in light of the correct legal framework, ensuring compliance with procedural law.   

Legal experts have hailed the decision as a landmark reaffirmation of trial procedures in sexual offense cases, ensuring that jurisdictional overreach does not undermine due process. Prosecutors and defense counsels concurred with the ruling, acknowledging that the original order had been legally untenable.  

This judgment is expected to serve as a guiding precedent in cases involving jurisdictional disputes under the Anti-Rape (Investigation & Trial) Act, 2021, reinforcing the necessity of charge framing before making determinations on scheduled offenses.  

Key Takeaways from the Judgment:   

1. Judicial determinations under the Anti-Rape Act, 2021 must occur during trial, not before.  
2. Courts must follow legislated trial procedures to avoid premature rulings.  
3. Only after the trial has commenced can a Court decide whether an offense qualifies as a scheduled offense under the Act.  

If a decision is made without following proper legal procedure, higher Courts have the authority to nullify and remand the case for fresh adjudication.

Powered by Froala Editor