1994 P Cr (PLP)
SIKANDAR ALI NADEEM alias SAKKO — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1994 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SIKANDAR ALI NADEEM alias SAKKO — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 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: 1994 P Cr (PLP) (SIKANDAR ALI NADEEM alias SAKKO — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- During the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the fact that prosecution evidence was closed in the trial Court on 22-7-1992 and thereafter for six times the case was adjourned in presence of defence counsel and ultimately the case was fixed for arguments on 24-8-1992. On said date the trial Court convicted the appellant without hearing his counsel. Learned A.A.-G. has drawn our attention to last but one para. of the impugned judgment, where the trial Court has mentioned that he had heard the defence counsel as well as Special Public Prosecutor. However, this observation by learned trial Judge is contradicted by the diary sheets of his own Court which bear his signatures. The diaries show that on 23-8-1992 the case was adjourned for arguments to 24-8-1992. On 24-8-1992 the defence advocate was not present and admittedly there could be no arguments from the defence side. Despite this learned Judge had audacity to mention in the impugned judgment that he had heard defence counsel. Without hearing defence counsel learned Judge has convicted the appellant and this is gross violation of a I principle of natural justice that nobody be condemned unheard.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 13-D
Principle of natural justice, violation of
Trial Court had convicted the accused without hearing his counsel
Gross violation of the principle of natural justice that nobody would be condemned unheard-- Conviction and sentence of accused were set aside in circumstances and the case was remanded to Trial Court for re-decision after hearing the arguments of defence counsel as well as the prosecution side.
Judgment & Decree
MUKHTAR AHMED JUNEJO, J.
Appellant Sikandar Ali was tried in Court of the Judge Special Court I (Suppression of Terrorist Activities), Karachi, in Special Case No.20/92. At conclusion of his trial he was convicted for an offence punishable under section 13-D of Arms Act and was sentenced to suffer R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000 or in default to suffer further R.I. for 6 months. The appellant has appealed against this conviction and sentence. The prosecution case is simple about recovery of a Klashnikov with 20 rounds from the appellant by a police party headed by Sub-Inspector Muhammad Irfan. During the course of arguments learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the fact that prosecution evidence was closed in the trial Court on 22-7-1992 and thereafter for six times the case was adjourned in presence of defence counsel and ultimately the case was fixed for arguments on 24-8-1992. On said date the trial Court convicted the appellant without hearing his counsel. Learned A.A.-G. has drawn our attention to last but one para. of the impugned judgment, where the trial Court has mentioned that he had heard the defence counsel as well as Special Public Prosecutor. However, this observation by learned trial Judge is contradicted by the diary sheets of his own Court which bear his signatures. The diaries show that on 23-8-1992 the case was adjourned for arguments to 24-8-1992. On 24-8-1992 the defence advocate was not present and admittedly there could be no arguments from the defence side. Despite this learned Judge had audacity to mention in the impugned judgment that he had heard defence counsel. Without hearing defence counsel learned Judge has convicted the appellant and this is gross violation of a I principle of natural justice that nobody be condemned unheard. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant and remand the matter to the trial Court for hearing the case of the defence counsel as well as prosecution side and re-decide the case. We would recommend to the Federal Government in the Ministry of Law and Justice to order this case to be decided by a Judge other than the Judge who has decided it. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. The Jail authorities to produce the appellant before the trial Court. N.H.Q./S-1033/K Case remanded.