P (PLP)
AZIM SHAH‑Appellant Versus CROWN‑Respondent
| Citation | P (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | R. K. M. Saker, J. C. |
| Parties | AZIM SHAH‑Appellant Versus CROWN‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: R. K. M. Saker, J. C..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P (PLP) (AZIM SHAH‑Appellant Versus CROWN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Muqim Ansari, for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 537‑Decision based on evidence Partly recorded by Sessions Judge and partly by his predecessor‑Irregularity riot curable under S. 537‑Retrial. A Sessions judge cannot base his decision on evidence partly recorded by his predecessor and partly by himself. The irregularity is patent and is incurable under Section 537 of Criminal Procedure Code. Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 1950 (Baluchistan) relied ova. Public Prosecutor, for Crown.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Muqim Ansari, for Appellant. Public Prosecutor, for Crown. JUDGMENT.‑This is an appeal from the judgment of K. S. Qazi Ghazanfar Hussain, Sessions Judge in Baluchistan, dated 3rd July 1950, whereby the accused‑appellant was convicted of an offence under section 459, Pakistan Panel Code and sentenc ed to three years' rigorous imprisonment. While arguments were proceeding on an application filed by the appellant for his release on bail pending disposal of this appeal, it was brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence on which the appellant's conviction was based had been recorded by Mr. Miall, the previous Sessions Judge in Baluchistan. The learned counsel argued on the analogy of this Court's ruling in Criminal Miscellaneous Revision No. 19 of 1950 that the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge was not maintain able on this technical ground alone. I have seen the order relied upon by the learned counsel. I find that although the accused Mahmud Ali in that case had asked the learned Sessions judge to act on the evidence previously recorded by his learned predecessor, his prayer was rightly rejected for the simple reason that a Sessions judge cannot bake his decision on evidence partly recorded by his predecessor and partly by him self. I need not elaborate on this point further as it has already been discussed fully in my order on Criminal Miscellaneous Revision Petition No. 19 of 1950. The learned Public Prosecutor has nothing to say. The irregularity being patent is incurables under section 537 of Criminal Procedure Code. I have no alternative but to set aside the judgment of the learned Sessions judge without entering into the merits of the case. There is no doubt that the present Sessions judge has formed his opinion in this case and it would not be proper for him to hear this case again. There being only one Sessions judge in this Province a reference shall be made to the Local Administration for the appointment of an Additional Sessions judge for the disposal of this case as well as any other case in which the present Sessions judge may be precluded from trying that case. In the meanwhile, the appellant shall be released on bail of Rs. 1,000 with a personal bond in like amount. This order of release on bail shall not in any way be binding on the trial Court as it will be open to that Court to, use its discretion in the matter of granting bail to the accused‑appellant pending disposal of his case. The case is accordingly remanded to the Sessions Judge in Baluchistan with a direction that it be referred to the Additional Sessions judge, when appointed, for disposal. Announced. K.M.A Case remanded.