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. 871 of 1976, decided on 18th January 1977.
S. 369‑‑Judgment/order, making of‑Sessions Judge purporting to dismiss revision petition by a short Urdu order, stating therein to have written a separate detailed order in English‑Presiding Officer, however, before writing judgment containing points for determination and reasons in support of his decision, meeting a sudden death‑In absence of proper judgment matter, held, could not be treated as having been disposed of in law‑Revision directed to be reheard, in circumstances.‑[Judgment].
Nemo for Petitioner.
Birjees Nagi for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 18th January 1977.
This reference, amongst others, has arisen on account of death of Ch. M. Javed Iqbal 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, on toe complaint of Sardar Khan, Noor Alam and others (accused) were summoned to face trial for offences under section 494/498, P. P. C. The accused moved the Sessions Court for action under section 435/ 438, Cr. P. C., against the said order of the learned Magistrate whereby they were summoned as accused persons. The learned Additional Sessions Judge purported to dismiss the revision petition by a short Urdu order stating therein that the detailed order has been written in English. Before he could write the judgment containing points for determination and reasons in support of his decision, the learned Judge, as noted earlier, died in an accident. The revision petition, it is conceded by both the learned counsel appearing for Sardar Khan complainant and the State, in the absence of proper judgment cannot be treated as having been disposed of in law. In the circumstances, it is directed that the said revision shall be reheard and disposed of in accordance with law.
(Note.‑Noor Alam, one of the accused who had filed the revision, appeared after the announcement of the order. He has been inform about it.)
Revision allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer