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. 122 of 1973, decided on 4th October 1973.
(On appeal from the order dated 14th March 1973, of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Criminal Revision No. 953 of 1972).
--‑‑Counter‑cases‑Case under S. 302 committed to Court of Session while case under S. 307 pending in Court of Magistrate‑High Court's order directing Sessions Judge to conclude trial of S. 302 case expeditiously and further directing proceedings in S. 307 case to remain pending and await trial of S. 302 case, held, based on correct interpretation of Supreme Court rule laid down in Muhammad Sadiq's case‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 307.
Muhammad Sadiq's case P L D 1971 S C 713 ref.
Ch. Ghulam Bari Salimi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Pana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 4th October .1973.
It appears that a case under section 302/ 307/34, P. P. C. has been registered at the instance of the respondents against the petitioner, because, in a fight which took place on the 12th of June 1971, one of the members of the party of the respondents received some injuries as a result of which he later expired.
The petitioner alleged that it was his party who were attacked and they had made their statements before the police at the Kahna dispensary, but the police, who were in collusion with the respondents, had refused to register their case. Thereafter, they had to file a complaint before a Magistrate, and on the order of the Magistrate a case under section 307/149, P. P. C. has been registered against these respondents. Now both these cross‑cases are proceeding; the 302 case has been committed to the Court of Session while the 307 case is being tried in a Court of a Section 30 Magistrate.
In these circumstances, on the application of the petitioner, the learned Sessions Judge stayed the proceedings in the 302 case till the disposal of the 307 case by the Magistrate. The respondents came to the High Court in revision and the High Court, relying on a decision of this Court in the case of Muhammad Sadiq (P L D 1971 S C 713) reversed the order of the Sessions Judge and directed that he should proceed and conclude expeditiously the trial of the section 302, P. P. C. case. Until the conclusion of the said case, the pro ceedings before the Section 30 Magistrate should remain pending and should await the trial of the section 302 case.
The petitioner now seeks special leave to appeal, and it is submitted on his behalf that the learned Judge of the High Court had misinterpreted the decision of this Court and wrongly stayed the proceedings before the Magistrate. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel. The High Court, in our view, has rightly read and interpreted the decision of this Court above‑referred to and there is no reason for us to interfere with his order.
This petition is also barred by seven days, and since we are disposing of this petition on merits, we will condone the delay as it has been occasioned by reason of the ignorance of the family members of the petitioner who is in jail.
The result, therefore, is that the delay is condoned but the petition is dismissed on merits.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer