1981 P Cr (PLP)

S. 367-Judgment, validity of-Trial Court without considering prosecution evidence, proceeding to discuss defence case and coming to conclusion that charge against petitioner stands proved-Impugn ed judgment also not containing point or points for determination as required under S. 367, Cr. P. C.-Operation of impugned judgment suspended, in circumstances.-[Judgment]. Ghulam Nabi v. Empress A I R 1938 Lah. 850; Ch. Zafar-ul-Haq and another v. The State P L D 1968 Lah. 437 and Muhammad Inayat v. The State, etc. 1978 P Cr. L J 865 ref. Sh. Nasim Hassan assisted by Lal Khan Baluch for Petitioners, Azam Suharwardi for the State, Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the impugned judgment is illegal inasmuch as the learned trial Magistrate, without considering the prosecution evidence. proceeded to discuss the defence case and came to the conclusion that the charge against the petitioners was proved. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Ghulam Nabi v. Empress (A I R 1938 Lah. 850) and Ch. Zajar-ul-Haq and another v. The State (P L D 1968 Lah. 437), where it was held that the proper course for the trial Court was to first consider the prosecution evidence and then deal with the defence version before arriving at the final conclusion. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also contended that the impugned judgment also does not contain the point or points for determination which is one of the requirements of a judgment as provided under section 367; Cr. P. C. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, a case for suspension of order of sentence is made out, in view of the aforementioned circumstances. 2. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, is of the view that the defects pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the impugned judgment are of not such a nature as would justify suspen sion of order of sentence. 3. I have considered the arguments of the parties' counsel. In my view the questions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are quite significant as when a judgment is challenged on the ground that it violates the provisions of section 367, Cr. P. C., it is expedient and in the interest of justice to suspend the operation of the impugned judgment. In this connection reference may be made to Muhammad Inayat v. The State etc. (1978 P Cr. L J 865). I accordingly allow the petitioner's prayer of suspension of sentence. They shall be released on furnishing bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000 (ten thousand rupees) with one surety in the like amount each to the satisfaction A. C., Bhakkar. Petition allowed.