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. 14 of 1981, decided on 10th May, 1981
-- S. 379 and Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance (VI of 1979), Ss. 15 & 17-Revision (criminal)-Juris diction-Police report itself not containing even a whit of facts in relation to offence of "haraabah" as defined in S. 15 of Hudood Ordinance and S. 17 of Ordinance wrongly quoted by Police-No allegation in Police report that any show of force for purpose of taking away property at all used - Subject-matter of offence, a truck lying on open road unguarded-Held: A simple case of theft not liable to - Hadd" and Tehsil Criminal Court to take its cognizance, in circumstances.-(Jurisdiction-Hadd-Theft].
Muhammad Hussain Khan for Petitioners.
Rafique Mahmood Khan, Addl. A.-G. assisted by Sardar Khan for the State.
Date of institution : 2nd March, 1981.
A challan under section 379, Penal Code and section 17 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, was put in the District Criminal Court, Rawalakot, for trial by the Police.
After some of the proceedings were taken by the said trial Court, an objection was taken to its jurisdiction by the accused-petitioners contending that the case is triable by a Tehsil Criminal Court and so the same should be sent to that Court for trial under law.
The impugned order, by which the objection was overruled by the District Criminal Court, was not elaborately made. Only one point regarding standard of evidence was taken in view and that is also question able so as to bring the prescribed number of witnesses in the form of ocular evidence.
The circumstances of the case, as they stand narrated by the prosecu tion, do not constitute the offence of haraabah' because there is no allega tion of making show of force for the purpose of taking away the property of the complainant if it is to be treated as his property, and no attack was made on him or there was no causing of wrongful restraint to him or be was not put in fear-of death or hurt, as the case may be, so as to constitute the offence of haraabah'. He was not even on or near the spot at all. Vide section 15 of the Ordinance, which defines the offence of haraabah'.
The police report does not contain even a whit of facts in relation to the offence of 'haraabah' under section 17. This section was wrongly quoted by the police. According to the very prosecution, the offence of haraabah' is not to be tried but the offence of theft stated in the police report. It is a simple case of theft not liable to hadd' because the property allegedly stolen by the accused-petitioner was not taken away from hirz'. The truck was on the road side lying unguarded and it was thus open and (not fortified), The constructive custody, if to be deemed as such, would not amount to hirz' when the property was lying without a hirz' (fortification) on the open road.
The ingredients constituting the offence of theft liable to hadd' lack in the instant case. It is obviously a case of theft not liable to hadd' and its cognizance is to be taken by the Tehsil Criminal Court.
In the result, this revision petition is -accepted and the impugned order is set aside and also any of the proceedings taken by the District Criminal Court are hereby quashed and the case is made over to the Tehsil Criminal Court, Pallandari for its trial de novo in accordance with law. Record of the case shall now be sent to the trial Court at Pallandari for action under law,
Revision allowed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer