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 No. 1078 of 1966, decided on 16th January 1968.
, S. 367 read with Ss. 423 & 439‑Judgment of appellate Court neither setting out facts of case nor points for determination nor discussion of evidence led‑Appeal, held, not disposed of as required by law Case remanded for re‑hearing of appeal.
Nemo for Petitioner.
Major Waheeduddin for the State.
Tahir petitioner has filed this revision petition through the jail authorities against the order dated 30th of May 1966 of Mr. K. M. A. Samdani Sessions Judge, Sialkot, whereby the appeal of the petitioner against his conviction and sentence ordered by A. D. M., Sialkot was dismissed. Learned counsel for the State states that he is unable to support the order of the learned Sessions Judge Sialkot, not on the basis of the merits of the case, but on account of the circumstance that the learned Sessions Judge has, in fact, not written a judgment as contem plated by section 367, Cr. P. C. He has cited I L R 5 Lah. 308 in support of his contention. The order of the. appellate Court indeed is one the briefest whereby an appeal from on order of conviction has over been disposed of. The order in question reads as follows:‑
"The conviction is based on the correct identification of the prisoner by two of the victims of the crime The fact that the prisoner objected to the identification only after he was correctly identified and not before is sufficient to show that he has no good defence and the prosecution case is genuine.
I, therefore, dismiss the appeal."
The judgment certainly does not satisfy the requirements of a judgment as laid down in section 367, Cr. P. C. The judgment neither sets out facts of the case , nor the points for determination nor indeed any discussion of the evidence led in the case, worth the name.
2. In the circumstances I do think that the appeal of the petitioner was not disposed of as required by law. The case is therefore remanded back to the Sessions Judge for re‑hearing of ‑the appeal and for disposal by a proper judgment. In case the Sessions Judge who disposed of the matter as a jail appeal by his order dated 30th May 1966 is no longer Sessions Judge, Sialkot, his successor shall decide the appeal after a re‑hearing.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer