PLD 1957

P L D 1957 (W (PLP)

GULAB SHAH‑Accused‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Decided Date
Criminal Appeal No. 139 of 1956, decided on 29th October 1956 from the order of A. D. M. and Special Judge, Mardan.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Shafi, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation P L D 1957 (W (PLP)
Forum / Court
Bench Members Muhammad Shafi, J
Parties GULAB SHAH‑Accused‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1957 (W (PLP)?

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

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1957 (W (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Muhammad Shafi, J.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1957 (W (PLP) (GULAB SHAH‑Accused‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Headnotes / Summary

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 556‑--Trial of accused by Magistrate who recorded confession--‑Bad in law

Magistrate "personally interested".

Judgment & Decree

MUHAMMAD SHAFI, J.‑--The only question involved in this case is whether a Magistrate who records the confession of a certain person is entitled to try the person making the confession ? In my view, he is not. Under section 556 of the Criminal Procedure Code a Magistrate is not authorized to try any case in which he is personally interested. The expression "personally interested" has been interpreted by the different High Courts as meaning not only "privately interested", but also "officially interested". If a Magistrate records a confession then he at once becomes at least officially interested in the case because it is to be proved that the confession recorded by him was genuine, true, and it was taken down after observing all the formalities laid down by the law. Apart from this, he is liable to be called as a witness in the case if the accused retracts the confession. I am consequently of the opinion that the trial of the accused by the Magistrate who recorded the confession is bad in law. It is quashed, and the case is sent back to the District Magistrate for retrial of the accused by a, Magistrate other than the one who recorded the confession. K. B. A. Proceedings quashed.