Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Criminal Revision Petition No. 28 of 1952, decided on 11th March, 1952, against the order of Sardar Ghulam Muhammad Khan, Sessions Judge, Rahimyar Khan, dated 30th January, 1952
S. 367‑rludgment in appeal, contents of‑Not in accordance with law‑Case remanded for determination afresh of appeal.
Where the judgment of the Sessions Judge had not touched the evidence and had not taken into consideration the grounds of appeal it could in no manner be a judgment which would help the Court of revision to decide a revision summarily.
The judgment was set aside and the case was sent back for determination of appeal according to law.
‑Two persons Gulu and Haidar were tried under section 325 Pakistan Penal Code by Mr. Noor Muhammad Hashmi Magistrate 1st class with section 30 powers for causing grievous injuries to Qazi Allah Diwaya. Haidar was acquitted and Gulu was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment. He preferred an appeal to ; he learned Sessions Judge Rahimyar Khan who dismissed the appeal. The present is a petition for revision against tine decision of learned Sessions Judge before this Court. The revision is through jail and the main grounds for the revision are that the learned Sessions judge has not considered the evidence on the file which could not establish the guilt of the petitioner. In support of his contention he had given some detailed grounds in his petition. I have read the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and I am unable to see that it is a judgment contemplated by section 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code. A similar appeal No. 25 of 1951 had come up before me in Rustam and others v. Crown, under section 325/149 Pakistan Penal Code in which it was held by me that the judgment was not a judgment in law and consequently it was set aside and the learned Sessions Judge was ordered to re‑write the judgment in accordance with law. I would like to deal with this point again in this petition for the information of the learned Sessions Judge. Section 367, Criminal Procedure Code reads :‑
"Every such judgment shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by this code, be written by the presiding officer of the Court (or from the dictation of such presiding officer) in the language of the Court, or in English and shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision; and shall be dated and signed by the presiding officer in open Court at the time of pronounc ing it and (where it is not written by the presiding officer with his own hand, every page of such judgment shall be signed by him).
2. It shall specify the offence (if any) of which, and the section of the Indian Penal Code or other law under which, the accused is convicted, and the punishment to which he is sentenced.
3. When the conviction is under the Indian Penal Code and it is doubtful under which of two sections or under which of two parts of the same section, of that Code the offence falls, the Court shall distinctly express the same, and pass judgment in the alternative.
4. If it be a judgment of acquittal it shall state the offence of which the accused is acquitted and direct that he be set at liberty.
5. If the accused is convicted of an offence punishable with death, and the Court sentences him to any punishment other than death, the Court shall in its judgment state the reason why sentence of death was not passed.
Provided that, in trials by jury, the Court need not write a judgment, but the Court of Session shall record the heads of the charge to the jury.
6. For the purposes of this section, an order under section 118 or section 123, subsection (3) shall be deemed to be a judgment".
This section requires that a judgment must contain the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. The object of these provisions is that a Criminal Court should consider the case before it in all its bearings and should, on such consideration, arrive at definite conclusion after considering the evidence in the case.
On page 2055 of the Criminal Procedure Code by Chitaley, IV Edn., it was observed by the learned commentator that a judgment should not be unnecessarily long. But it should be written in such a way that it would be easy to summarily dismiss an appeal against it on a perusal of the judgment alone.
The perusal of the present judgment would evidently show that the learned Sessions judge has not touched the evidence and had not taken into consideration the grounds of appeal and his judgment therefore can in no manner be a judgment which would help the Court of revision to decide a revision summarily. I would not hesitate to observe that the Court of the Sessions judge is expected to carefully keep in view the principle of law on the question of judgments. It can well be said that the present judgment can be appended to any appeal to decide it. The learned Sessions judge has not taken the least trouble as I have observed above to consider the evidence against the petitioner on the file. Judgment of this type frustrates the object of appeal. Even the learned Government‑Advocate was unable to support it on these grounds. I therefore accept the revision, set aside the judgment of the lower appellate Court and send the appeal back to determine it in accordance with law. The petitioner shall be informed through jail. The lower appellate Court will give notice of the date of hearing in jail to the convict.
A. H.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer