1998 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AZIM‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1998 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AZIM‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AZIM‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- -----Ss. 426 & 497---penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302-----Sindh Children Act (XII of 1955), S.68(2)‑‑‑Suspension of order of detention‑‑‑Appellant/applicant who was child within meaning of Sindh Children Act, 1955 was tried for offence of murder under S.302, P.P.C.‑‑‑Court finding him guilty referred his case to Provincial Government for appropriate orders under S.68(2), Sindh Children Act, 1955‑‑‑Appellant/applicant had challenged order of Court in appeal and also had made application under 5.426, Cr.P.C. for suspension of order of his detention‑‑‑Appellant/applicant had contended that trial against him was concluded in the absence of an Advocate in complete disregard of provisions contained in R.6, Part M, Chap. VII of Federal Capital and Sindh Courts Criminal Circulars, which had provided that an Advocate at State expenses was to be engaged on behalf of accused in a case inviting capital punishment ‑‑‑Most of the important prosecution witnesses having been examined in case of appellant/applicant without providing services of an Advocate to appellant/ applicant, legality of his trial was doubtful‑‑‑Application for suspension of order of detention was allowed and appellant/applicant was granted bail.
- 3. It is contended that the trial against the appellant was concluded in the absence of an Advocate in complete disregard of the provisions contained in Rule 6, Part M, Chapter VII, of the Federal Capital and Sindh Courts Criminal Circulars, which provides that an Advocate at State expense is to be engaged on behalf of the accused in a case inviting capital punishment. The perusal of the record of the trial Court shows that most of the important prosecution witnesses were examined without providing the services of an Advocate to the appellant and consequently the legality of the trial of the appellant is doubtful. The cases t reported as Abdul Aziz and another v. The State 1984 PCr.LJ 530, Niaz Ahmad v. The State 1984 PCr.LJ 1054, Muhammad Waqar v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 197 and Muhammad Iqbal v. The State 1992 MLD 287, are clear on this point.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 426 & 497
penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.302
Sindh Children Act (XII of 1955), S.68(2)‑‑‑Suspension of order of detention‑‑‑Appellant/applicant who was child within meaning of Sindh Children Act, 1955 was tried for offence of murder under S.302, P.P.C.‑‑‑Court finding him guilty referred his case to Provincial Government for appropriate orders under S.68(2), Sindh Children Act, 1955‑‑‑Appellant/applicant had challenged order of Court in appeal and also had made application under 5.426, Cr.P.C. for suspension of order of his detention‑‑‑Appellant/applicant had contended that trial against him was concluded in the absence of an Advocate in complete disregard of provisions contained in R.6, Part M, Chap. VII of Federal Capital and Sindh Courts Criminal Circulars, which had provided that an Advocate at State expenses was to be engaged on behalf of accused in a case inviting capital punishment ‑‑‑Most of the important prosecution witnesses having been examined in case of appellant/applicant without providing services of an Advocate to appellant/ applicant, legality of his trial was doubtful‑‑‑Application for suspension of order of detention was allowed and appellant/applicant was granted bail.
Judgment & Decree
Abdul Aziz and another v. The State 1984 PCr.LJ 530; Niaz Ahmad v. The State 1984 PCr.LJ 1054; Muhammad Waqar v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 197 and Muhammad lqbal v. The State 1992 MLD 287 ref. Muhammad Rafiq Khanzada for Appellant. Shaukat H. Zubedi, A.A.‑G. for the State. Appellant Muhammad Azeem, a child within the meaning of Sindh Children Act, 1955, was tried by learned III Additional Sessions Judge (Central), Karachi, for the offence under section 302, P.P.C., who found him guilty and vide judgment, dated 5‑10‑1991 referred his case to the Provincial Government for appropriate orders under section 68(2) of the Sindh Children Act, 1955. By this appeal the appellant has challenged the said order. He also made an application under section 426, Cr.P.C., for the suspension of the order of his detention.
2. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Rafiq Khanzada, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. Shaukat H. Zubedi, learned A.A.‑G. for State. The latter has raised no objection to the grant of bail to appellant.
3. It is contended that the trial against the appellant was concluded in the absence of an Advocate in complete disregard of the provisions contained in Rule 6, Part M, Chapter VII, of the Federal Capital and Sindh Courts Criminal Circulars, which provides that an Advocate at State expense is to be engaged on behalf of the accused in a case inviting capital punishment. The perusal of the record of the trial Court shows that most of the important prosecution witnesses were examined without providing the services of an Advocate to the appellant and consequently the legality of the trial of the appellant is doubtful. The cases t reported as Abdul Aziz and another v. The State 1984 PCr.LJ 530, Niaz Ahmad v. The State 1984 PCr.LJ 1054, Muhammad Waqar v. The State 1991 PCr.LJ 197 and Muhammad Iqbal v. The State 1992 MLD 287, are clear on this point.
4. Faced with this situation the learned A.A. ‑G. has raised no objection to the grant of bail to appellant. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the appellant is granted bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 (Rs, one lac) with P R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Nazir of this Court. H.B.T./M‑219/K Application allowed.