1965 P Cr (PLP)
THE STATE-Appellant Versus KHUSHAL KHAN-Respondent
| Citation | 1965 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | : Abdul Ghani Khan Khattak, J |
| Parties | THE STATE-Appellant Versus KHUSHAL KHAN-Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1965 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1965 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: : Abdul Ghani Khan Khattak, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1965 P Cr (PLP) (THE STATE-Appellant Versus KHUSHAL KHAN-Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 439(3) read with Ss. 32 & 34 Accused tried by Magistrate First Class for offence under S. 377, P. P. C. and sentenced to 2 years' R. l.-Sessions Judge while dismissing accused' s appeal making reference to High Court for enhancement of sentence--Maximum penalty imposable by Magistrate First Class under S. 32, Cr. P. C., 2 years Magistrate not shown to have been acting under S. 34, Cr. P. C. Higher sentence, held, in circumstances of case, cannot be passed without ordering re-trial of accused. Qasim Rizvi for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Qasim Rizvi for the State. Nemo for Respondent. JUDGMNT By his order dated 28th January 1966, a Magistrate 1st Class, in the District of Rawalpindi, convicted Khushal Khan, son of Muhammad Hussain, resident of Dhok Mahmood Ali Shah, under section 377, P. P. C., and sentenced him to two years' R.
1. The learned Sessions Judge, Rawalpindi, while dismissing his appeal, has made a reference for enhancement of the sentence.
2. Subsection (3) of section 439, Cr, P. C. reads:- "Where the sentence dealt with under this section has been passed by a Magistrate acting otherwise than under section 34, the Court shall not inflict a greater punishment for the offence which, in the opinion of such Court, the accused has commit ted,, than might ha% a been inflicted for such offence by a Magistrate of the first Class." The maximum penalty that could be imposed by the Magistrate (First Class) under the provision of section 32, Cr. P. C., was not exceeding two years. The record does not show that the Magistrate recording the sentence of the respondent was acting under section 34, Cr. P. C. It follows, therefore, that a higher, sentence without ordering retrial cannot be passed. If the learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the case ought be retried, he should have himself set aside the conviction under the provision of section 423, Cr. P. C., and ordered retrial by Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to him. I do no wish to be taken for a moment saying that offence for which the accused was convicted was not serious one. The Cardinal principle of law is that a man ought not be tried twice over fog an offence and for the same reason. I do not feel inclined to order retrial. The reference is not accepted and the notice sent to the respondent is recalled. , Reference not accepted