Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

JAN MUHAMMAD versus THE CROWN


The Pakistan Penal Code, Criminal Code (h 1898), applies even to cases of criminal conspiracy, such as conspiracy to control, in terms of section 180, Criminal PC, as section 120A, pp. C was not inserted for example? Section 180 Criminal PC is that Section 120, PPC was enacted in 1913, while the example of Section 180, the date of Criminal PC is 1882 and as such an example in Section 120A, P. It was impossible to insert a PC. Section 180, Criminal PC

P L D 1956 Karachi 395

Before Constantine, C. J. and Muhammad Bakhsh, J

JAN MUHAMMAD and another

Versus

THE CROWN

Confirmation Case No. 34 of 1951 and Criminal Appeals Nos. 297; 298 of 1951, decided in January 1952.

(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)

, S. 120‑A‑Abetment to conspiracy‑Whether a substantive offence.

Conspiracy is one of the forms of abetment and it makes no difference that conspiracy by way of abetment requires an overt act, whereas conspiracy under section 120‑A P. P. C. to commit the illegal act requires no overt act. Abet ment is just as much a substantive offence as is conspiracy under section 120‑A, P. P. C.

(b) Criminal Procedure Code (h of 1898)

, S. 180‑Whether applicable to cases of criminal conspiracy.

Conspiracy equally with abetment comes within the terms of section 180, Criminal P. C. The reason why section 120‑A, P P. C. was not inserted as an illustration to section 180 Criminal P. C. is that section 120, P. P. C. was enacted in 1913, while the illustrations to section 180, Criminal P. C. date as far back as 1882 and as such it was impossible to insert section 120‑A, P. P. C. in an illustration with the body of section 180, Criminal P. C.

The two appellants in the present case were charged in the alternative either with conspiracy at K to murder N and with murdering N at S under sections 120‑B, P. P. C, and 302, P. P. C. or with murdering N under section 302, P. P. C. They were convicted by the Sessions judge at S in agreement with all the four assessors under section 120‑B, P. P. C.

The counsel for the appellant contended that the Sessions Judge at S, had no jurisdiction to try the offence of conspiracy alleged to have been taken place at K.

Held, the Sessions judge at S had jurisdiction to try the charge of conspiracy. Emperor v. Pursumal Gerimal and another A I R 1938 Sind 108 dissented from.

H. T. Raymond for Appellant No. 1.

Ihsanul Haq for Appellant No. 2.

Inamullah, Public Prosecutor for the Crown.

JUDGMENT

CONSTANTINE, C. J.

‑This case is before us by way of appeal and for. confirmation of the death sentences imposed upon the two appellants. They were charged in the alternative either with conspiracy at Karachi to murder Nishanali and with murdering Nishanali in Nawabshah District near Bandhi Rail way Station under section 120‑B and section 302, Pakistan P, C., or with so murdering Nishanali under section 302, Pakistan P. C. They were convicted by the learned Sessions Judge, Nawabshah, in agreement with all four assessors, under the first head.

Objection has been made by Mr. Raymond for the appel lant Jan Muhammad that the Sessions Judge, Nawabshah, had no jurisdiction to cry the offence of conspiracy alleged to have taken place in Karachi. He relied upon Emperor v. Pursumal Gerimal and another ((1938) A I R Sind 108). That decision, though entitled to great respect, is not binding on us, as it was pronounced by the then Court of the Judicial Commissioner. With great respect also we consider that this decision regarding sec tion 180, Criminal P. C. is wrong. Two points are made; the first is that section 120‑A constitutes a substantive offence, and the second point is that this offence is not mentioned in any of the illustrations to section 180. The first illustration, however, to section 180 mentions abetment, One of the forms of abetment is conspiracy, and it seems to us to make no difference that conspiracy by way of abetment requires an overt act, whereas conspiracy under section 120‑A to commit illegal act requires no overt act. Abetment is just as much a substantive offence as is conspiracy under section 120‑A. As to the second point, section 120‑A was enacted in 1913, while the illustrations to section 180, Criminal P. C. date as far back as 1882, and obviously, therefore when the illustrations were originally enacted together with the body of section 180, it was impossible to insert section 120‑A in an illustration. It seems to us clear that conspiracy equally with abetment comes within the terms of section 180. We therefore hold that the learned judge had jurisdiction to try the charge of conspiracy.

K. B. A. Appeals dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
law websites from Sohawa District Jelum lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.