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 Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 373, 374 and 375 of 1968, decided on 13th February 1969.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 14th November 1968, in Criminal Revision No. 1023 of 1968, read with Criminal Revision No. 1026 of 1968 and Criminal Revision No. 1031 of 1968 of even date).
S. 408‑Misappropriation of sum of less than Rs. 100‑Triable solely by Conciliation Court under S. 3 of Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961 only if all parties agree.
Muhammad Rashid Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Abdul Karim Sheikh, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State.
Date of hearing : 13th February 1969.
This disposes of Criminal Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 373, 374 and 375 of 1968.
The petitioner stands convicted at three separate trials under section 408, P. P. C. for misappropriation of Government receipts for renewal of arms licences and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 in each case. Appeals against convictions and sentences having failed in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lahore, he preferred revision petitions in the High Court under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The only point urged in support of the revision petition was that inasmuch as the sum involved was less than Rs. 60 the offence was triable by the Conciliation Court and the Magistrate who held the trial in the first instance had acted without jurisdiction.
The plea raised was per se untenable as the offence under section 409, P. P. C. involving misappropriation of a sun' of less than Rs. 100 is triable by a Conciliation Court only if all the parties thereto agree to such a reference. The revision petitions were, accordingly, dismissed by a learned Judge in the High Court.
There was nothing to indicate that the State had at any stage agreed to a reference to the Conciliation Court. On the contrary reports under section 173, Cr. P. C. were submitted in the Court of a Magistrate for trial under the Code. The provisions in the Conciliation Courts Act and the rules framed thereunder on which the learned counsel relied in support of the contention that it is the duty of the Court to ascertain from the parties their wishes in this behalf are applicable only when the case is brought before the Conciliation Court and not to trials under the Criminal Procedure Code.
The view adopted by the High Court is plainly correct. We refuse leave to appeal and dismiss the petitions.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer