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 Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 342 of 1976, decided on 28th November 1977.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 17th June, 1976, passed in Criminal Revision No. 918 of 1975).
Penal Code (XLV of 1860)‑
‑‑‑ Ss. 279 & 337‑Rash driving‑Causing hurt by rash and negligent act‑Appreciation of evidence‑Contention as to accused petitioner having not been driving jeep in question but made a scapegoat to save his officer who actually drive vehicle neither supported by evidence nor finding of Courts below holding him responsible for offence tainted by misreading of evidence or by overlooking any relevant material on record‑Plea raised also pertaining purely to appraisement of evidence ‑ Petition in circumstances, dismissed as without any force.
Muhammad Akhtar, Advocate instructed by Syed Wajid Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for the State
Date of hearing: 21st November 1977.
. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court, dated 17‑6‑1976, whereby the revision petition of the petitioner was dismissed, with the modification that the sentences imposed upon him under sections 297 and 337, P. P. C. which were ordered to run consecutively, have been ordered to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution, as disclosed in the F. I. R. was that the petitioner was driving jeep Bearing No. LED‑5245, belonging to the Health Department, rashly and negligently, on account of which he hit the rear part of another jeep, Bearing No. RIB‑9080, which was being driven by Tai Muhammad (PE. 6) causing injuries to the passengers of that jeep, who were little girls, going to various schools. The F. I. R. in this case was based on the statement of Taj Muhammad aforesaid, which was recorded in the hospital, where he was taken soon after the accident. In the said report the name and description of the person driving the jeep were not mentioned. However, his identity was discovered during investiga tion.
3. The petitioner was tried by Mr. Muhammad Mashkoor Ahmad Khan, Magistrate IInd Class, Rawalpindi. Before him, his case was that the jeep (LED 5245) which hit the jeep being driven by the complainant, was actually being driven by the S. D. O. and he was substituted in his place to save a high Officer of the Department. The learned Magistrate, however, believed the prosecution evidence, which, in the main, consisted of the evidence of Taj Muhammad P. W. because, in so far as the girl passengers were concerned they did not name or identify the petitioner, and held that it was jeep No. LED 5245 which caused the accident and that this jeep was being driven by the petitioner at that time. The defence version was considered to be an afterthought on the reasoning that it was not put to any of the prosecution witnesses, nor even to Taj Muhammad complainant when he appeared in the witness‑box. Accordingly, the petitioner was convicted under section 279, P. P. C. and awarded four months R. I. and a fine of Rs.200, and also convicted under section 337, P. P. C. and sentenced to three months' R. I. Both the sentences were ordered to run consecutively. In default of payment of fine, the petitioner was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
4. The petitioner filed an appeal before the District Magistrate, Rawalpindi, which was dismissed by Mr. Shahzad Hassan Pervez, A. D. C. (G)/District Magistrate, Rawalpindi, on 20‑12‑1975. The petitioner then filed a revision in the High Court, which was heard by Mr. Justice Kamal Mustafa Bokhari, and was dismissed with the modification that the sentences shall run concurrently.
5. Before us, Mr. Muhammad Akhtar, Advocate, again attempted t argue that the petitioner was not the driver of the jeep, and being a poor employee, had been made a scapegoat to save the S. D. O., who was actually driving the jeep. However, he could not support this submission by reference to any part of the evidence, or establish that the finding of the Courts below was tainted ‑by misreading of evidence or by over looking any relevant material on record. Moreover, the plea raised before us pertains purely to the appraisement of evidence and no other illegality or impropriety in the order passed by the learned Judge has been pointed out. There is n force in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer