Find a Lawyer

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 46 of 1972, decided on 10th March 1972.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated the 9th February 1972, in Criminal Appeal No. 469 of 1967).

Conciliation Courts Ordinance (XLIV of 1961),

S. 18 read with Sched, Part I, Section A‑Cognizable case relating to offences specified in Section A, Part I of Schedule investigated by Police and taken to a criminal Court‑Court has discretion to send case to Conciliation Court or to try itself.

Mahmood Majid Khan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Raja Abdul Razzaque, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for the State.

Date of hearing : 10th March 1972.

The petitioner, Muhammad Yaqub,. was convicted by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in original criminal jurisdiction, for offences under sections 323,.504 acid 342/34, P. P. C. He was sentenced to imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000, or, in default of payment, six months' R. I., under section 323, P. P. C. Under section 504, P. P. C. he was awarded a sentence of 6 months' R. I. and to pay Rs. 500, or, in default, three months' R. I. Under section 342/34, P. P. C. he was only sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100, or, in default, one .month's R. I. The sentences of imprisonment under all the 'offences were made to run concurrently. His co‑accused, Muhammad Farooq, who is his younger brother, was convicted tinder section 342/34, P. P: C. but sentenced only to a fine of as. 50, or, in default, to one‑week's R. I. The leniency in the sentence in his case was due to the ground that he had acted under the ' influence of his elder brother, i.e., petitioner Muhammad‑Yaqub. .

The victim of the violence in this case was the late Mr. Justice Shabbir Ahmad, a retired Judge of the High Court of West Pakistan. He had left his house for a morning stroll, accom panied by two bull‑terrier dogs and a small lap dog. One of the bull‑terrier dogs was on leash, while the other was free. When he was passing through the locality known as Shadman Colony, the loose dog rushed at the pet deer of the petitioner, which was tied at a distance of about 15 feet from the outer gate of the house: The complainant shouted at the dog and was able to catch hold of it before it could cause serious injury to the deer. Just then the petitioner came out of his house and started giving filthy abuses to the complainant and wresting his walking stick from him, showered blows on him, giving him several injuries. Later, the petitioner and his brother stopped the complainant from moving further until he had paid Rs. 215 as compensation for the injuries caused to the deer. The deer was examined by the veterinary doctor, who found some injuries on it.

Mr. Shabbir Ahmad had received seven injuries as a result of stick blows. The petitioner's case at the trial was that he had aimed blows at the dog to save his deer from its clutches but each time the blow landed on the master, who was trying to save the dog. This version was rightly rejected, as it cannot be imagined that the petitioner unwittingly hit the complainant each time that he aimed the blow at the dog.

The learned Single Judge, who has held the trial, and the Letters Patent Bench, which has heard the appeal, have made a careful analysis of the evidence produced in the case, and have found that the version given by the complainant, was unassailable, and was also supported by circumstantial evidence.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before us that at the worst it was a case under section 334, because the petitioner was provoked by the complainant. The evidence does not reveal that the complainant had done anything to provoke the petitioner. Instead, he was angered by the unfortunate mauling of his deer by the complainant's dog, which obviously was beyond the anticipation or contemplation of the complainant, and which occurred in spite of his best efforts to restrain his dog. The petitioner, instead of holding himself in restraint, let go his own anger, and not only abused the complainant but also added insult to injury by giving repeated stick blows.

One other point urged was that the offences for which the petitioner has been ultimately convicted fell within the jurisdiction of the conciliation Court. Section 18 of the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961, provides that nothing in the Ordinance shall prevent the police from investigating a cognisable case, although it may be one triable exclusively under the Ordinance, and if such a case, i.e., the one which has been investigated by the police, is taken to a criminal Court, then it is for such Court, if it thinks fit, to direct that it be referred to conciliation under the Ordinance. In the present case, the police had started investiga tion into the offence under sections 394 and 342, P. P. C. which were cognisable by the police and the challan was put into the Court. As such, under section 18 aforesaid, the discretion lay with the trial Magistrate to send the case to the conciliation Court or to try it himself. If the latter course has been followed, no legal objection is available against it.

No substance is disclosed in this petition for our interference, which is, therefore, dismissed.

Leave refused,

Find a Lawyer Near You

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