1968 SCMR 380 (PLP)
GIANCHAND-Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 380 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Fazle-Akbar and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ |
| Parties | GIANCHAND-Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 380 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 380 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Fazle-Akbar and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 380 (PLP) (GIANCHAND-Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. M. Pirzada, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 30th October 1967, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 170/67). Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 561-A-Determination of guilt or innocence of accused depend on totality of facts and circumstances revealed during trial-Surh stage not reached-Application for quashment of proceedings, in such circumstance, held rightly refused by High Court-Special Leave to Appeal prayed for refused by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-On a private complaint by the respondent No. 2 a charge under section 380, P. P. C. has been framed against the petitioner by the Civil Judge and Magistrate First Class Mehar, district Dadu. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner applied to the High Court under section 561-A, Cr. P. C., for quashment of the charge on numerous grounds to the effect that the prosecution case against him was entirely false. The prayer was refused on the view that it was premature at this stage to make an assessment of the merits in the prosecution case. Reliance was placed on more than one decision of this Court that quashment of proceedings at so early a stage gives an unfortunate impression of stifling of criminal prosecutions by exercise of an extraordinary power which is given for the dispensation of complete justice in the forms provided by law. We have seen the statements of the witnesses so far examined in support of the complaint and find that if they are to be believed the charge against the petitioner shall stand proved. However, no opinion could be expressed at this stage for determination of the guilt or innocence of the petitioner will eventually depend on the totality of the facts and circumstances revealed during the trial. Admittedly such a stage has not yet been reached. The application for quashment of the proceedings in the Court of the trial Magistrate was thus rightly rejected by the High Court. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed. Petition dismissed.