1984 PLP 943 (SCMR)
SALIMUDDIN‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | 1984 PLP 943 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑ Ss. 304, 304‑A & 337‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 438 & 439‑Causing death by negligence or rash and negligent driving ‑Revision‑Reference‑Enhancement of sentence‑Trial Court convicting and sentencing accused to R. I under Ss. 304‑A & 337 --Appeal filed by accused dismissed‑Additional Sessions Judge on revision by complainant making reference to High Court under S. 438, Cr. P. C. for considering "imposition of fine of granting compensation to dependents of deceased"‑High Court ordering suo motu notice for enhancement of sentence but on contrary converting offence from S. 304‑A/337 to S. 304, Penal Code‑Held, sending case back to High Court for considering question of enhancement of sentence not proper at late stage after nearly twenty years‑Judgment passed by High Court set aside and that of trial Court restored.‑Sentence. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SALIMUDDIN‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1984 PLP 943 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1984 PLP 943 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑ Ss. 304, 304‑A & 337‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 438 & 439‑Causing death by negligence or rash and negligent driving ‑Revision‑Reference‑Enhancement of sentence‑Trial Court convicting and sentencing accused to R. I under Ss. 304‑A & 337 --Appeal filed by accused dismissed‑Additional Sessions Judge on revision by complainant making reference to High Court under S. 438, Cr. P. C. for considering "imposition of fine of granting compensation to dependents of deceased"‑High Court ordering suo motu notice for enhancement of sentence but on contrary converting offence from S. 304‑A/337 to S. 304, Penal Code‑Held, sending case back to High Court for considering question of enhancement of sentence not proper at late stage after nearly twenty years‑Judgment passed by High Court set aside and that of trial Court restored.‑Sentence. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1984 PLP 943 (SCMR) (SALIMUDDIN‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellant.
- Rao Muhammad Yousaf, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
- Date of hearing 4th April, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment and order dated 21‑9‑1977 of the Lahore High Court passed in Criminal Revision No. 505 of 1966). (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ --Art. 185 (3)‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860); Ss. 304 & 304‑A‑Leave to appeal granted to consider legality of order of High Court passed in suo motu revision converting conviction of accused petitioner under S. 304‑A to one under S. 304, Penal Code‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ‑‑ Ss. 304, 304‑A & 337‑‑Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 438 & 439‑Causing death by negligence or rash and negligent driving ‑Revision‑Reference‑Enhancement of sentence‑Trial Court convicting and sentencing accused to R. I under Ss. 304‑A & 337 --Appeal filed by accused dismissed‑Additional Sessions Judge on revision by complainant making reference to High Court under S. 438, Cr. P. C. for considering "imposition of fine of granting compensation to dependents of deceased"‑High Court ordering suo motu notice for enhancement of sentence but on contrary converting offence from S. 304‑A/337 to S. 304, Penal Code‑Held, sending case back to High Court for considering question of enhancement of sentence not proper at late stage after nearly twenty years‑Judgment passed by High Court set aside and that of trial Court restored.‑[Sentence].
Judgment & Decree
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.‑Leave to appeal was granted in this case to consider mainly the legality of the order of the High Court passed in suo motu revision converting the conviction of the appellant under section 304‑A, P. P. C. to one under section 304, P. P. C.
2. Appellant Salim‑ud‑Din who had been driving Bus No. 1689‑BR had been found responsible for causing the death of Jamshed Khan and injuries to Siraj Hussain by driving his bus on the wrong side and had been held guilty by the Magistrate under sections 304‑A and 337, P. P. C. and sentenced to R. I. for two years and to R. I. for six months, respectively, which sentences were to run consecutively. This is vide order dated 31‑12‑1965.
3. The appellant filed an appeal and the complainant a revision before the Court of Session. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal but in the complainant's revision made a reference to the High Court under section 438, Cr. P. C. for considering the imposition of fine or granting compensation to the‑ dependents of the deceased Jamshed Khan and to injured Siraj Hussain. Both sides came in revision before the High Court,, Criminal Revision No. 475/1966 was filed by the appellant and Criminal Revision No. 505/1966 by the complainant Dilshad A. Khan seeking conversion of the conviction from sections 304‑A and 337, P. P. C. to section 304, P. P. C. While dismissing the appellant's bail ap plication a suo motu notice for enhancement of the sentence , was also issued by the High Court which was numbered as Criminal Revision No. 621/ 1966 A learned Single Judge of the High Court, while accepting the suo motu revision on 21‑9‑1977 converted the conviction of the appellant from sections 304‑A and 337, P. P. C. to one under section 304, P. P. C. and sentenced him to R. I. for ten years and a fine of Rs. 5,000 or in default in payment thereof to R. I. for one year. The fine if realized was to be paid to the legal heirs as compensation. The appellant's revision was dismissed.
4. After hearing the parties, we feel unable to sustain the order passed by the High Court. The reference received from the Additional Sessions Judge had been only for imposition of fine or compensation. The suo motu notice for enhancement had been ordered by the High Court (by Inam Ullah Khan, C. J.) on 15‑6‑1966 in the following words :‑ "Issue notice for enhancement of sentence. The application for bail is dismissed." There was thus no scope in the suo motu notice for converting offence from sections 304‑A/337, P. P. C. to 304, P. P. C. Only the ' sentence awarded under those sections could be enhanced. The occurrence having taken place on 29‑12‑1964, it would not be proper to send the case back to the High Court for considering the question of enhancement of the punishment at this late stage, i. e. after nearly twenty years., We, there fore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment passed by the High Court and restore that of the trial Court. The appellant shall be taken into custody in order that he serves out the sentence. S. Q. Appeal allowed.