Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Criminal Revision No.386 of 1986, decided on 24th January, 1987.
---S.420/468/471--Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.435/439--Appellate Court below failing to go into legal question whether conviction recorded by trial Magistrate was a joint conviction and whether sentence awarded by trial Magistrate was joint in respect of all three offences and if so what was their legal effect and whether case deserved to be remanded to trial Magistrate with any particular direction--Judgment of Appellate Court set aside and case remanded for de novo hearing and disposal in accordance with law especially with a view to determine said legal question.
Muhammad Ramzan v. The State K L R 1985 Cr.C. 311 and Abdul Wahab and others v. The State 1984 P Cr. L J 1921 rel.
Asif Saeed Khan Khosa for Appellant.
Qamar-ud-Din for the State.
Date of hearing: 24th January, 1987.
This is a petition under section 435/439, Cr.P.C. by Muhammad Siddique, petitioner, against the judgment of an Additional Sessions Judge of Sialkot dated 19-4-1986, dismissing his appeal. Earlier, a First Class Magistrate of Lahore, by his judgment dated 22-1-1986, had convicted the petitioner under section 420/468/471, PPC and conjointly sentenced him to imprisonment till the rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rupees two thousand (Rs.2,000) or in default thereof to undergo six months simple imprisonment.
2. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that an important legal question was not decided by the learned appellate Judge, namely, as to whether the petitioner could have been conjointly convicted and sentenced under section 420/468/471, PPC and whether it was not a case where he should have remanded the case back to the trial Magistrate for rewriting of the judgment, after rehearing the arguments. In this connection counsel has cited Muhammad Ramzan and others v. The State K L R 1985 Cr. C 311. and Abdul Wahab and others v. The State 1984 P Cr. L J 1921. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. It is correct that the learned appellate Judge has neither gone into the question whether the conviction recorded by the trial Magistrate was a joint conviction and whether the sentences awarded by the trial Magistrate were joint in respect of all the three offences and, if so, what was their legal effect and whether the case deserved to be remanded to the trial Magistrate, with any particular directions. These are important legal questions which the learned appellate Judge should have looked into. Since he has not done so, his judgment is illegal and deserves to be set aside and the appeal deserves to be remanded back to him for de novo hearing and disposal in accordance with law. For the A foregoing reasons, this revision petition is accepted and the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Sialkot dated 19-4-1986 is hereby set aside. The Criminal Appeal (Cr. A. 11 of 1986) preferred by Muhammad Siddique, appellant, before the Sessions is hereby remanded to the Sessions Judge, Sialkot, for de novo hearing and disposal, in accordance with law, and especially with a view to determine the legal questions that arise, as stated in para. 2 above. The said appeal shall be heard by the learned Sessions Judge himself or he shall mark it to an Additional /Sessions 'Judge for disposal.
M.Y.H./M-280/L Case remanded.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer