Register
PLD 1950

P (PLP)

NURAL ISLAM AZIZI‑‑Accused Petitioner Versus CROWN‑-Opposite — Party

Jurisdiction / Court
Decided Date
Criminal Revision No. 416 of 1948 decided on 18th November, 1949, against the order of conviction passed under section 161, Indian Penal Code by Magistrate, 1st Class on 6th October' 1948 and the dismissal of appeal by Sessions Judge, Rajshahi.
Honorable Judges
Ellis and Ispahani, JJ.
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation P (PLP)
Forum / Court
Bench Members Ellis and Ispahani, JJ.
Parties NURAL ISLAM AZIZI‑‑Accused Petitioner Versus CROWN‑-Opposite — Party
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Ellis and Ispahani, JJ..

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: P (PLP) (NURAL ISLAM AZIZI‑‑Accused Petitioner Versus CROWN‑-Opposite — Party). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Headnotes / Summary

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

S. 231‑Charge under S. 161 Pakistan Penal Code read with one under S. 5 (2) of Act 11 of 1947‑Latter charge subsequently withdrawn‑Accused entitled to re‑call prosecution: witnesses. A charge was framed against the petitioner under section 161 of the Pakistan Penal Code‑read with section 5 (2) of Act II of 1947. On 6th March, 1948 arguments were heard and the case was adjourned to 10th July, 1948 for orders. On 16th August, 1948 however the charge under section 5 (2) of the Act was purported to have been withdrawn and a petition by the defence under section 231 of the Code of Criminal procedure was rejected and judgment was ultimately delivered convicting the petitioner. Held, under section 231, Criminal Procedure Code, the, petitioner had a right to recall the prosecution witnesses after the charge had been altered even if the alteration did not affect his defence. He still .possessed the right in law and the Magistrate acted illegally in depriving hire of that right and rejecting his appli cation for the recall of witnesses. D. C. Roy for A. K. Fazlul Hug and 111. H. Khondker fore Petitioner. S. Afzal Deputy Legal Remembrancer, for the Crown

Judgment & Decree

ISPHANI, J.

I agree. A.H Case remanded

Legal Tools

Metadata Directory

  • Journal: PLD
  • Volume Year: 1950
  • Citation Ref: P (PLP)

Cite & Link (Backlink Generator)

Are you writing a blog or referencing this case? Copy the optimized HTML link below to cite this judgment on your website and create a legal backlink:

HTML Backlink Code:
Text Citation:

Related Judgments

  • P L D 1950 Sind 70 MAHOMED ALAM Appellant Versus CROWN‑Respondent
  • P L D 1950 Sind 68 MUZAFARDIN alias MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑Petitioner Versus CROWN‑Respondent
  • P L D 1950 Sind 49 M. A. KHUHRO‑Plaintiff Versus THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN, ETC.‑Defendants
  • P L D 1950 Sind 36 Mst. NOOR BIBI‑-Plaintiff Versus PIR BUX‑Defendant
  • P ARBAB and others‑Appellants Versus THE CROWN‑Respondent
  • P MAKHAN KHAN NAWAZALI‑Appellant Versus EMPEROR