P L D 1952 Dacca 11 (PLP)
MONTAZER RAHMAN‑Accused Petitioner Versus CROWN‑‑Opposite Party
| Citation | P L D 1952 Dacca 11 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Amin Ahmed and Ibrahim, JJ |
| Parties | MONTAZER RAHMAN‑Accused Petitioner Versus CROWN‑‑Opposite Party |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1952 Dacca 11 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1952 Dacca 11 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Amin Ahmed and Ibrahim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1952 Dacca 11 (PLP) (MONTAZER RAHMAN‑Accused Petitioner Versus CROWN‑‑Opposite Party). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Abdul Ghani, for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 420‑Judge need not state in judgment all that he does for rejecting appeal summarily. The section does not require that the Judge in rejecting an appeal summarily must state all that he does for his rejecting an appeal summarily. No one, for Opposite Party.
Judgment & Decree
AMIN AHMED, J.
‑This rule was obtained by the peti tioner against an order of the Sessions Judge of Noakhali and summarily dismissing his appeal against order of 1st Class Magistrate convicting the petitioner under sections 457 and 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under each of the above sections, the sentence to run concurrently. The rule was issued only on ground No. 1 of the petition which runs thus : "For that the order of summary dismissal is bad in law". It is urged by Mr. Ghani, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, that inasmuch as the Sessions Judge does not anywhere in his order state that he perused the judgment of the Trial Court, there has been no compliance of the provis ions of section 420 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We are unable to accept this contention, for the section does not require that the Judge in rejecting an appeal summarily must state all that he does for his rejecting an appeal summarily. We, however, find that the learned Judge has stated that he heard the pleader for the appellants and that he found no substance in the grounds taken by the petitioner before him. Mr. Ghani has also argued that it will appear from the judgment of the Trial Court that the Trial Court misread the evidence of some of the witnesses and, therefore, it is a fit case in which the Sessions judge should at least send for the records. There is no substance in this argument either, for we cannot find in any of the several grounds taken by the petitioner before the Sessions judge that he took this objection. The result, therefore, is that this rule is discharged and the petitioner will now surrender to his bail bond and serve out the period of sentence imposed on him. M. IBRAHIM J.‑
I agree. K. M. A. Rule discharged.