Find a Lawyer

Criminal Revision No. 580 of 1984, decided on 10th November, 1984.

---S.244‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.411‑‑Statement of complainant recorded before framing of charge and after framing charge trial Court not caring to re‑examine him‑‑Section 244, Criminal Procedure Code, held, violated‑‑Conviction and sentence set aside‑‑Accused released on bail and case remanded for de novo trial.

Tariq Pervaiz for Petitioner.

M. Sharif for the State.

Date of hearing: 10th November, 1984.

The facts giving rise to this petition are that Muhammad Ashraf petitioner was tried by Magistrate First Class under section 41, P.P.C. who sentenced him to one year's R.I. His appeal failed on 20‑10‑1984, hence this revision petition.

2. Since after hearing the learned counsel for the parties I feel inclined to remand the case back to the trial Court. I need not enter into the merits of the case. I find that the statement of the complainant Muhammad Ramzan was recorded by the trial Court on 6‑1‑1976 and the charge was framed on 23‑1‑1976 and that after the framing of the charge the trial Court did not care to re‑examine the complainant. This to my mind is in clear violation of section 244, Cr.P.C. which reads as follows:‑

"Section 244. Procedure when no such admission is made.‑‑(1) If the Magistrate does not convict the accuse under the preceding section or if the accused does not make such admission the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the complainant (if any), and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution, also to bear the accused and take all such evidence as he produces in his defence:

Provided that the Magistrate shall not be bound to hear any person as a complainant in any case in which the complaint has been made by a Court.

(2) The Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, on the application of the complainant or accused, issue a summons to any witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing.

(3) The Magistrate may, before summoning any witness on such application, require that his reasonable expenses, incurred in attending for the purposes of the trial, be deposited in Court:

Provided that it shall not be necessary for the accused to deposit any such expenses in Court in cases where he is charged with an offence punishable with imprisonment exceeding six months."

That being the position, the revision is accepted. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside. The case is sent back to the trial Court for de novo trial. The petitioner who is in jail shall bell released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C. /Magistrate, Lahore.

M.Y.H. Case remanded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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