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 Appeals Nos. 94 to 97, 104, 105, 106, 107, 111 and 116 of 1980, heard on 7th November, 1984.
---S. 5(2)--Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468 & 471--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 234--Accused persons in ten cases tried at one trial for more than three offences--Offences appearing to have been committed in different transactions--Offence under. S. 5, Prevention of Corruption Act en independent offence, trial of accused in all cases. held, was in violation of mandatory provisions of S: 834, Cr. P. C, and illegal--Conviction set aside and case remanded for retrial in circumstances.
Ch. Riyasat Ali and Sultan Mahmood for Appellants.
Saleem Shad for the State.
Date of hearing: 7th November, 1984.
These 10 Criminal Appeals Nos. 94 of 1980 to 97 of 1980 by Malik Aziz Din and others, Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 1980 by Muhammad Sadiq Javid, Criminal Appeal No. 105 of 1980 by Rashid Ahmed, Criminal Appeal No. 106 of 1980 by Muhammad Sarwar, Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 1980 by Malik Aziz Din, Criminal Appeal No. 111 of 1980 by Syed Akhlaq Hussain and Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 1980 by Ghulam Nabi arise from the judgments of the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore whereby he on 30-1-1980 convicted them under various sections and sentenced them to one year's R.I. each in each case and different amounts of fine.
2. Since after hearing the learned counsel for the parties I feel inclined to set aside the convictions and sentences of all the appellants in all cases because of illegality of trial in each. Therefore, I need not enter into the merits of the case. I find that in all the ten cases the accused therein were tried at one trial for more than three offences. The offences appear to have been committed in different transactions.
Further, the offence under section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is also an independent offence. It is thus very much obvious that the trial of the appellants/ accused in all the ten cases was in violation of the mandatory provisions of section 234, Cr.P.C. That being the position there is no alternative but to set aside the convictions and sentences and send back the ten cases for retrial according to law. The police may file separate challans if so advised.
H . A . Appeals accepted, case remanded.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer