Find a Lawyer

Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 931 of 1985, decided on 3^rd April, 1986.

‑‑‑Ss. 249‑A & 561‑A‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 452 E 323/34‑ Quashing order of acquittal‑‑Ladies sustained injuries in incident but they were not examined‑‑Evidence of Medical Officer and Investigating Officer had not come on record‑‑Perusal of impugned order making it clear that counsel for State bras not heard by trial Court while disposing of case under S.249‑A. Criminal Procedure Code‑‑Order of acquittal, held, was unjust and improper in circumstances‑‑Order set aside and case remanded with direction that trial Court should examine important and necessary witnesses and then decide case on merits and according to law.

‑‑‑S. 249‑A‑‑When order is proposed to be passed under S.24 Criminal Procedure Code, it is necessary to hear both parties.

Ghulam Mustafa Memon for the Petitioner.

Abusherf Zia‑ud‑Din Muhammad for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.

A.A. Muhammad Ally for the State.

Date of hearing: 3rd April, 1986.

This is an application under section 561‑A, Cr.P.C. for quashment of order passed by A.C.M. under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C.

The relevant facts giving arise to this application are that c under section 452, 323/34, P.P.C, was challaned in the Court of A.C. VIII (West) Karachi, who by order, dated 26‑7‑1984, acquitted respondents under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C. The Revision was tiled against that order which was dismissed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge (East) Karachi, by an order, dated 14‑7‑1985.

Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Memon, appearing for the applicant contended that trial Magistrate had not been examined injured Mst. Shamim Akhtar, the Medical Officer, the Investigating Officer and another important with It is also argued that Magistrate based his finding on the contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. It is contended that these contradictions from the Police statement have not been proved through Investigating Officer as he was not examined. It is submitted that Additional City Magistrate while acquitting the respondents not afforded the opportunity of hearing to the State Counsel Mr. Abusherf Ziauddin Muhammad, Advocate appearing for private respondents submitted that accused were properly acquitted by the additional City Magistrate.

Mr. A.A. Muhammadaly, learned A.A.‑G. has supported this Criminal Miscellaneous Application had submitted that order passed by the Additional City Magistrate is contrary to the provisions of the law.

This is a case where two ladies sustained injuries. The injured Mst. Shamim Akhtar, was not examined. The evidence of Medical Officer and Investigating Officer has not come on record, on perusal of impugned order it is clear that counsel for the State was not, heard while disposing of the case under section 249‑A. Cr.P.C. It is necessary to hear both the parties when order is proposed to be passed under section 249‑A, Cr.P.C.

The upshots of the above discussion is that the order of acquittal is unjust and improper which is accordingly set aside. The case is remanded back with directions that trial Court should examine the important and necessary witnesses and then decide the case on merits and according to law.

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.