1985 P Cr (PLP)
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF alias SARWAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1985 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF alias SARWAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 P Cr (PLP) (MUHAMMAD ASHRAF alias SARWAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tariq Pervaiz for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 10th November, 1984.
Headnotes / Summary
S.244‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.411‑‑Statement of complainant recorded before framing of charge and after framing charge trial Court not caring to re‑examine him‑‑Section 244, Criminal Procedure Code, held, violated‑‑Conviction and sentence set aside‑‑Accused released on bail and case remanded for de novo trial. M. Sharif for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 10th November, 1984. The facts giving rise to this petition are that Muhammad Ashraf petitioner was tried by Magistrate First Class under section 41, P.P.C. who sentenced him to one year's R.I. His appeal failed on 20‑10‑1984, hence this revision petition.
2. Since after hearing the learned counsel for the parties I feel inclined to remand the case back to the trial Court. I need not enter into the merits of the case. I find that the statement of the complainant Muhammad Ramzan was recorded by the trial Court on 6‑1‑1976 and the charge was framed on 23‑1‑1976 and that after the framing of the charge the trial Court did not care to re‑examine the complainant. This to my mind is in clear violation of section 244, Cr.P.C. which reads as follows:‑ "Section
244. Procedure when no such admission is made.‑‑(1) If the Magistrate does not convict the accuse under the preceding section or if the accused does not make such admission the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the complainant (if any), and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution, also to bear the accused and take all such evidence as he produces in his defence: Provided that the Magistrate shall not be bound to hear any person as a complainant in any case in which the complaint has been made by a Court. (2) The Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, on the application of the complainant or accused, issue a summons to any witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing. (3) The Magistrate may, before summoning any witness on such application, require that his reasonable expenses, incurred in attending for the purposes of the trial, be deposited in Court: Provided that it shall not be necessary for the accused to deposit any such expenses in Court in cases where he is charged with an offence punishable with imprisonment exceeding six months." That being the position, the revision is accepted. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner is set aside. The case is sent back to the trial Court for de novo trial. The petitioner who is in jail shall bell released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.10,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of A. C. /Magistrate, Lahore. M.Y.H.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Case remanded.