P L D 1958 (W (PLP)
GUL ZAMA N‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1958 (W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Shafi, J |
| Parties | GUL ZAMA N‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1958 (W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1958 (W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Muhammad Shafi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1958 (W (PLP) (GUL ZAMA N‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Abdul Majid for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 4th January 1958.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 367 read with S. 424‑Judgment of appellate Court‑Not setting out points for determination, the decision thereon, nor reasons for the same‑No judgment in eye of law‑Case remanded for re= writing judgment. The judgment should contain point or points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. It should specify the offence, if any, of which and the section of P. P. C. under which the accused is convicted and the punishment to which he is sentenced. It should be quite apparent on the face of the judgment that the Court has applied its mind to the case and has arrived at the final conclusion after considering the case before it in all its bearings. Where an appellate Court's judgment only said that the judge had perused the grounds of appeal and the order appealed against and had arrived at the conclusion that there was no substance in the appeal: Held, that the judgment was defective, vague and indefinite and that it was no judgment in the eye of law. Case was remanded to the officer who heard the appeal for re‑writing the judgment according to law. Q. A. Wahab for A.A. G. Abdul Latif Khan for Complainant.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD SHAFI, J.‑Mahmud Khan, Magistrate Second Class, Haripur, by his order, dated the 20th of February 1956, convicted Gul Zaman, son of Mir Zaman, on a complaint made under section 447, P. P. C., and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 50, or in default to simple imprisonment for 20 days only. The accused went up on appeal against this order, which was heard by Mr. Muhammad Jan Khan, District Magistrate, Hazara, who disposed it of in the follow ing words :‑ "The appellant and the P. I. present. I have perused the grounds of appeal and the order appealed against and have heard the appellant. All the ingredients of the offence were proved in the case. The sentence is not at all excessive. There is no substance in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed." The learned District Magistrate seems to have dealt with the case not as a judicial officer, but as an executive officer. It is high time that the executive officers, who are also entrusted with judicial work, realized that when they act in the latter capacity, they have to forget for the time being that they are also executive officers. The judgment which has come up to me in revision is no judgment in the eye of law. The learned District Magistrate seems to have com pletely ignored the provisions of section 367 of the Criminal P. C. which apply to the judgments of the subordinate Appellate Courts under section 424 of the same Code. According to the former section, the judgment should contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. It should specify the offence, if any, of which and the section of the P. P. C. under which the accused is convicted and the punishment to which he is sentenced. The object of this provision is that it should be quite apparent on the face of the judgment that the Court has applied its mind to the case and has arrived at the final conclusion after considering the case before it in all its bearings. A judgment, therefore, which only says that the judge has perused the grounds of appeal and the order appealed against and has arrived at the conclusion that there is no substance in the appeal is no judgment in the eye of law. It is vague, indefinite, and highly defective. In the circumstances, therefore, I am constrained to accept this revision petition, and send the record back to Mr. Muhammad Jan Khan, wherever he is, to rewrite the judgment strictly in accordance with law. He will be at liberty to come to a different conclusion, if after perusing the evidence, and considering all the pros and cons of the case, he thinks that no case has been made out against the accused. S.D.A./A. H. Case remanded.