Find a Lawyer

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 163 of 1967, decided on 9th October 1967.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 14th April 1967, in Criminal Revision No. 783 of 1962).

S. 29‑B‑Trial of juvenile offender‑Jurisdiction‑Special leave to appeal‑Granted to consider whether High Court's interpretation that notification generally empowering all Magistrates is not sufficient compliance with provisions of S. 29‑B read with S. 8(1), Reformatory Schools Act, 1897‑Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 58(3).

Raja Said Akbar Khan, Advocate‑General West Pakistan (Abdul Hamid Malik, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by Ijaz Ali, Attorney for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 9th October 1967.

‑this is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court in a criminal revisional petition whereby the conviction of the respondent for an offence under section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code, by a section 30 Magistrate, has been quashed on the ground that the Magistrate who convicted him was not properly empowered by name under section 29‑B of the Code of Criminal Procedure to try a juvenile offender.

The ground upon which the order of the Magistrate has been quashed is that the Magistrate must be specially empowered by name by the Provincial Government to exercise the powers conferred by section 8(1) of the Reformatory Schools Act, 1897. In the present case what happened was that the Government issued a notification on the 7th of January 1924, investing all Magistrates of the First Class with the powers mentioned in section 8(1) of the above‑mentioned Act within the local limits of their respective jurisdiction. The High Court took the view that this was not sufficient in law to vest the Magistrate with such powers, as, according to the High Court, the notification should have empowered each Magistrate by name.

The State has filed this petition for special leave to appeal and it is contended on behalf of the State that it is a question of some general importance which should be authoritatively decided by this Court as to whether the High Court is correct in its interpretation that a notification generally empowering all Magistrates is not sufficient compliance with the provisions of section 29‑B of the Code of, Criminal Procedure read with section 8(1) of the Reformatory Schools Act, 1897.

This petition, in our view, does raise a serious question of law of some general importance. Leave is, accordingly, granted to consider the above question.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.