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.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 10 of 1968, decided on 21st February 1968.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 20th November 1967, in Criminal Revision No. 228 of 1963).
S. 486 Person found guilty and sentenced to one year's R. I. by 1st Class Magistrate with enhanced powers-High Court, on revision, reducing sentence to period already undergone (3 months) but imposing in lieu of unexpired period fine of Rs. 3,000-Contention that High Court could not impose fine of more than As. 1,000 the maximum which trial Magistrate could have imposed-Held :fine imposed by High Court was quite legal-Powers of High Court in awarding sentence not relegated to that of Magistrate-Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court-Criminal Procedure Code (1r of 1898), Ss. 32 & 439.
Munir Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Tanvir Ahmad, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 21st February 1968.
The petitioner sold in the City of Lahore adulterated-tea in the wrappers of the well-known Brooke Bond Tea Company which led to complaints by P. Ws., consequent upon which a raid was conducted by an Inspector of Police and a number of packets of adulterated tea were recovered from his business premises. The petitioner was thereupon charged with the offence under section 486, P. P. C. before a Magistrate Ist Class envested with enhanced powers under section 30, Cr. P. C., who on the basis of a large volume of evidence given by completely disinterested witnesses by order dated 9th January 1963, found him guilty of the offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one yeas. An appeal from conviction and sentence was dismissed by, the Sessions Judge, Lahore, on 8-2-1963 against which a further' revision petition was admitted to hearing by the High Court and the petitioner enlarged on bail. It was on the 20th November 1967, that the revision came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge when on a full review of the evidence and the plea" of defence affirmed the conviction but in view of the long interval reduced the term of imprisonment to the period of 3 months already under-one anti in Beta of the unexpired portion imposed a fine of Rs. 3000.
Leave to appeal is asked for on the ground that as the offence under section 486 is triable, by a Magistrate 1st Class whose power to impose fine As limited to Rs. 1,000 it follows that notwithstanding the enhanced powers of the Magistrate who tried the petitioner under section 30, Cr. P. C., the High Court ,I could not impose a fine of more than Rs. 1,000 on the petitioner.
The ground raised is wholly devoid of force. The provision in the Criminal Procedure Code that an offence under section 486 is triable by a Magistrate 1st Class does not impose a limitation in the matter of fine upon the powers of the Court which may try an offender under this section. The powers of Magistrates in respect of imposition of imprisonment and fine are defined in the Code on the basis of classification of Courts and not on the classification of offences. Limitations in this respect are either built in the penal provisions or specifically provided for by the statute. For example a case triable by a Magistrate 1st Class may be transferred by a High Court before itself. It would not follow that the powers of the High Court in awarding sentence in such a case would be relegated to that of the Magistrate. Undoubtedly the High Court may within the maximum provided by law impose any sentence on the offender which the facts of the case. The imposition of a fine of Rs. 3,000 on the petitioner by the High Court was thus legal and well merited on the facts of the case.
The petition is dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer