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. 352 of 1966, decided on 20th September 1976.
‑ S. 342 read with S. 254‑Charge, amendment of‑Prosecution evidence comprising of five witnesses showing a Pima facie case against petitioner‑Contention that examination of petitioner under S. 342 having been found defective, lower revisional Court was bound to recommend for annulment of charge‑Contention, held, having no force, in circumstances.‑[Charge].
Nemo for Petitioner.
Naeem Shakir for the State.
Date of hearing : 20th September 1976.
This revision petition by Sadiq Hussain petitioner is directed against the judgment of Mr. Muhammad Hassan Sindher, Additional Sessions Judge; Lahore, dated 10‑1‑1966, who while dealing with the revision petition of the petitioner against the order of Ch. Muhammad Saeed Akhtar, Magistrate Section 30, Lahore, dated 20‑2‑1965, whereby he framed charge against the petitioner under section 304‑A, P. P. C., remanded the case to the trial Magistrate with the direction that he should re‑examine the petitioner under section 342, Cr. P. C.
2. The allegation against the petitioner was that he had through negligent and rash driving caused the death of an old woman named Mst. Mehran Bibi. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the state ment recorded under section 342, Cr. P. C. was defective as the accused/ petitioner was not communicated to the full extent as to what was the allegation against him levelled by the prosecution and furthermore it was not ascertained from him as to what was his explanation or defence in regard to that charge. While holding that the statement under section 342, Cr. P. C. suffered from this infirmity, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge did not think it proper to recommend for the annulment of the charge on the ground that there was ample evidence on the record to show that there was a prima facie case made out against the petitioner. He came to the conclusion that it was in the interest of justice that the learned trial Magistrate would re‑examine the petitioner under section 342, Cr. P. C. In the light of his observation he remanded the case for this purpose.
3. Ch. Feroze Din, Advocate who filed this petition in 1966 did not appear on 17‑6‑1976 when it was placed before me for the first time. However, the case was adjourned and the petitioner was called upon to appear before this Court. It was on 8‑7‑1976 that learned counsel made his personal appearance and submitted that as it was an old case, he would like to lay his hand on the brief. The case was adjourned for today.
4. Despite the case was called out several times neither the petitioner nor his counsel turned up to press the petition although the name of the learned counsel was mentioned in the cause list.
5. I have gone through the record of this case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State and have carefully examined the reasoning of the learned Additional Sessions Judge while disposing of the revision petition before him. Learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the examination of the petitioner under section 342, Cr. P. C. was definitely defective, therefore, he directed the trial Court to re‑examine the petitioner in the larger interest of justice. It is also in his judgment that the evidence on the record comprising of five witnesses was sufficient to show that there was a prima facie case against the petitioner and a legitimate presumption could be drawn against him on the basis of that evidence under section 254, Cr. P. C. I am in full agreement with him and find no reason to interfere with his order, which in based on good reasons and is sound in the eye of law. Learned counsel for the State has also supported the judgment and has rebutted vehemently the arguments urged in the petition that once the learned Additional Sessions Judge has found the examination defective, he was bound to recommend to the High Court for annulment of the charge. According to the learned counsel this would be nothing but hair splitting and cause of justice would not be defeated by mere technicalities. I find lot of wisdom in the arguments of the learned counsel so advanced by him in this respect and dismiss the petition as being without any force.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer