1909 PLP 418 (SCMR)
ALI KHAN AND ANOTHER‑Appellants Versus THE CROWN‑Respondent
| Citation | 1909 PLP 418 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir, C. J., A. S. M. Akram and Muhammad Sharif, JJ |
| Parties | ALI KHAN AND ANOTHER‑Appellants Versus THE CROWN‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1909 PLP 418 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1909 PLP 418 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Munir, C. J., A. S. M. Akram and Muhammad Sharif, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1909 PLP 418 (SCMR) (ALI KHAN AND ANOTHER‑Appellants Versus THE CROWN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A. A. Zari, Advocate Federal Court instructed by Nazir‑ud- Din, Attorney for Appellants.
- Jamil Hussain Rizvi, Advocate Federal. Court instructed by Zahir Abbas, Attorney for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 13th January 1955
- With their appeal to the Chief Court the appellants also presented an application for bail which (same up for hearing before Inamullah, J. on 8th June 1954. The learned Judge directed notice of the application to be given to the Advocate‑General. Accordingly, the application was heard by a Division Bench of Inamullah and Muhammad Bakhsh, JJ. on 11th June 1954. As the prayer for bail was not opposed by the Advocate‑General, both the appellants were admitted to bail, and the appeal was ordered to be heard summarily. The appeal was then listed for hearing on 6th July, and notice of this was given to the counsel for the appellant. On 6th July, however, counsel was not present and the learned Chief Judge and Rahim Bakhsh, J. summarily dismissed the appeal after perusing the petition of appeal and the judgment appealed from. It is, therefore, apparent that the provisions of section 421 were duly complied with, and it cannot be said that there has been any irregularity or illegality in the disposal of the appeal. Whether the record should or should not have been sent for was in the discretion of the learned Judges. It seems that the judgment appealed from being a detailed document in which the entire evidence was substan tially reproduced, they did not think it necessary to send for the record. The case was perfectly simple and raised no complicated question of fact or of law. In these circumstances, the procedure adopted by the appellate Court did not contravene the principles laid down by this Court in Khalil and others v. The Crown.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Chief Court of Sind, dated the 6th July 1954, in Criminal Appeal No. 212 of 1954).
S. 421‑Whether records should be called for or not‑Discretion of appellate Court No complicated question of fact or law arising and judgment appealed from reproducing substantially entire evidence‑Summary dismissal of appeal, held, justified. Khalil and others v. The Crown P L D 1953 F C 133 considered.
Judgment & Decree
Khalil and others v. The Crown P L D 1953 F C 133 considered. A. A. Zari, Advocate Federal Court instructed by Nazir‑ud- Din, Attorney for Appellants. Jamil Hussain Rizvi, Advocate Federal. Court instructed by Zahir Abbas, Attorney for Respondent. Date of hearing : 13th January 1955 MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C. J.‑Special leave to appeal in this case was given on the question whether the summary dismissal of the appeal of the petitioners who had been convicted of robbery and causing hurt and sentenced to substantial terms of imprisonment, offended against the principles laid down by this Court in Khalil and others v. The Crown (P L D 1953 F C 133). The main evidence against the appellants was that of Juman, the person who alleged that he had been robbed by the appellants on a high‑way in broad day‑light, of Gul Muhammad whom both the appellants attempted to rob shortly before the robbery charged, and of Adbullah who saw both the appellants together shortly after the robbery riding on two bicycles and carrying a bundle. The property robbed was a cycle and a bundle of cloth. The decision of the case, therefore, turned on the view that the Court took of the evidence of these three witnesses. With their appeal to the Chief Court the appellants also presented an application for bail which (same up for hearing before Inamullah, J. on 8th June 1954. The learned Judge directed notice of the application to be given to the Advocate‑General. Accordingly, the application was heard by a Division Bench of Inamullah and Muhammad Bakhsh, JJ. on 11th June 1954. As the prayer for bail was not opposed by the Advocate‑General, both the appellants were admitted to bail, and the appeal was ordered to be heard summarily. The appeal was then listed for hearing on 6th July, and notice of this was given to the counsel for the appellant. On 6th July, however, counsel was not present and the learned Chief Judge and Rahim Bakhsh, J. summarily dismissed the appeal after perusing the petition of appeal and the judgment appealed from. It is, therefore, apparent that the provisions of section 421 were duly complied with, and it cannot be said that there has been any irregularity or illegality in the disposal of the appeal. Whether the record should or should not have been sent for was in the discretion of the learned Judges. It seems that the judgment appealed from being a detailed document in which the entire evidence was substan tially reproduced, they did not think it necessary to send for the record. The case was perfectly simple and raised no complicated question of fact or of law. In these circumstances, the procedure adopted by the appellate Court did not contravene the principles laid down by this Court in Khalil and others v. The Crown. We see no ground to interfere and dismiss this appeal. Appeal dismissed.