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.
1980 P Cr. L J 684
[Lahore]
Before Gulbaz Khan, J
TAJ MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner
versus
THE STATE‑Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 1120 of 1967, heard on 17th November, 1979.
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑---
----S. 263‑Summary trial‑Record in non‑appealable cases‑Trial Court omitting to mention offences complained of, not recording plea of accused, not backing finding with a brief statement of reasons therefore, nor imposing separate .sentence for each offence and fine imposed also exceeding maximum sentence under S. 112, West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965‑Mandatory provisions of S. 263, Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 in circum stances, held, not complied with and impugned orders set aside --West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance (XIX of 1.965), S. 1:12.
Sh. Salamat Ullah for Petitioner.
Mehdi Ilassan Shah for A.‑G. (Punjab) for the State.
Date of hearing : 17th November, 1979.
Tai Mohammad petitioner was convicted by Divisional Traffic Magistrate, Sargodha Division, on 3‑4‑1967, under section 4.43/112, 4.47/112, 4.57/112, 5.2/112 and 5.50/112 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300. He preferred an appeal against his convictions and sen tences but the same was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Lyallpur. Now he has come up in revision.,
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial Court had violated the mandatory provisions of section 263, C r. P. C by omitting to mention the offences complained of and also by coot recording the plea of the accused and the finding with a brief statement of reasons therefore. He further contended that the trial Court did not specify under what offences the petitioner was convicted nor did he impose sentence for each offence separately. He also contended that the maximum sentence under section 11.2 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance vas Rs. 100.
3. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner any much weight. The trial Court did not comply with the mandatory provisions ‑ of section 263, Cr. P. C. as a result of which I accept this revision and set aside the impugned orders. The amount of fine, if deposited, shall be refunded to the petitioner.
Petition accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer