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 Revision No. 874 of 1976, decided on 18th January 1977.
‑‑ S. 367 ‑ Judgment purporting to have disposed of matter typed out but neither corrected nor signed by Presiding Officer‑No indication on record to show that such judgment was ever read by Presiding Officer, after having been typed and before he died Uncorrected and unsigned judgment, held, not a judgment delivered in accordance with law and cannot be treated as valid‑Matter, held further, to be deemed pending before Court and to be heard afresh and disposed of in accordance with law.‑[Judgment].
Mahboob All v. Syed Qamar Alt and another 1972 S C M R 109 and Amin Sharif v. Syeda Khatoon and another P L D 1962 S C 97 rel.
Abdur Rahim v. Taj Muhammad P L D 1970 Lah. 294 and Nisar Ahmad v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore and another P L D 1976 Lah. 1162 distinguished.
Zafar Ahmad Gondal for Petitioner.
Muhammad Yunus Khan for A.‑G. for Respondent No. 1.
Raja Muhammad Khalid for A: G. for the State.
Date of hearing : 18th January 1977.
This reference, amongst others, has arisen on account of death of Ch. M. Javed lqbal Cheema, Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gujrat. Before his sudden death in an accident, he had prima facie concluded certain proceedings which for one or the other reason needed clarification whether they should be deemed as concluded in law or not. There are several cases on the criminal side, which are being dealt with separately.
2. In this matter, Muhammad Hussain and others, accused convicts, had filed an appeal against their conviction and sentences. On the other hand, Muhammad Bashir complainant had moved a revision petition for enhancement of sentence. On 26‑11‑1975, the learned Additional Sessions Judge noted in the Urdu order‑sheet that the accused‑appellants were acquitted vide order of the same date. On the revision also, in the Urdu order‑sheet it was similarly noted that in accordance with the order passed on the same day, the revision was dismissed. The learned Judge, it appears from the record, dictated the judgment purporting to dispose of both the appeal and revision. It was typed out in two copies. One is available on the appeal file and the other, on the revision file. The typed judgment has neither been corrected nor signed. There is no indication that it was even read by the learned Judge after having been typed out and before he died. The typed judgment shows that the appeal of the convicts was allowed by giving them the benefit of doubt.
3. In a similar connected matter (Cr. Revision No. 949/76), relying on Mahboob Ali v. Syed Qamar All and another (1972 S C M R 109) and Amin Sharif v. Syeda Khatoon and another (P L D 1962 S C 97), I have already held that the "judgment" as in the present case "not having been prepared, signed and delivered in accordance with law, the appeal of the accused convicts should be deemed to be still pending before the Sessions Court".
4. Learned counsel for the accused relying on Abdur Rahim v. Taj Muhammad (P L D 1970 Lah. 294) and some of the observations in Nisar Ahmad v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore and another (P L D 1976 Lah. 1162), contended that the judgment in this case even if not prepared, signed and delivered in accordance with the provisions contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, should be held as valid and effective.
5. The facts and law applicable in the former case of Abdul Rahim are distinguishable while the observations in the latter case of Nisar Ahmad do not in any way help the learned counsel. There is not enough justifica tion for me to change the view taken in the earlier noted matter, namely. Criminal Revision No. 949 of 1976. The uncorrected and unsigned judgment, which was not delivered in accordance with law cannot be treated as valid so as to dispose of the appeal and revision. The same shall be deemed to be still pending before the learned Sessions Court and shall be A heard afresh and disposed of in accordance with law. With this order, Criminal Revisions Nos. 874 and 944 of 1976 stand disposed of.
Order accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer