P L D 1959 Supreme Court (Pak (PLP)
HARI MEAN‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 Supreme Court (Pak (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir, C. J., Shahabuddin, Cornelius and Amiruddin Ahmad, JJ |
| Parties | HARI MEAN‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 Supreme Court (Pak (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1959 Supreme Court (Pak (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Muhammad Munir, C. J., Shahabuddin, Cornelius and Amiruddin Ahmad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1959 Supreme Court (Pak (PLP) (HARI MEAN‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Tofazzal All, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, (Ahmad Sobhan, Advocate Supreme Court with him), instructed by Wadood Mian, Attorney for Appellant.
- B. A. Siddiki, Advocate‑General of East Pakistan, (Abdul Hye, Advocate Supreme Court, with him), instructed by Abdul Rasheed, Attorney for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 7th May 1959.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 11th December 1957, in Revision No. 96 of 1957). East Pakistan Food (Special Courts) Act (X of 1956), S. 4
Special Magistrate‑Not a Magistrate within scope of S. 408, Cr. P. C.‑No appeal lies from his order. An order of a Special Magistrate appointed under the East Pakistan Food (Special Courts) Act, 1956 is not, appealable. A Special Magistrate is not a First Class Magistrate appointed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the powers that he exercises are substantially in excess of those possessed by a First Class Magistrate inasmuch as a Special Magistrate may sentence a person to 3 years' imprisonment and impose any amount of fine. Thus no right of appeal can be inferred from S. 408 of the Criminal Procedure Code, nor is there any other provision in the Code from which such right may be inferred.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD MUNIR, C. J.‑The short issue requiring deter mination in this appeal is whether a sentence pronounced by a Special Magistrate functioning under the East Pakistan Food (Special Court) Act, 1956 (X of 1956), is apealable. Under S. 404 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, "No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a criminal court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force". The Act under which a Special Magistrate functions does not expressly give any right of appeal to a person convicted in the proceedings held before a Special Magistrate. Section 8, however, provides that "The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in so far as they are applicable and in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, shall apply to all matters connected with, arising from or consequent upon a trial by a Special Magistrate appointed under this Act". The important words in this provision are "in so far as they are applicable" and we have not been able to discover any provision in the Code which gives a right of appeal from a sentence passed by a Special Magistrate. A Special Magistrate is appointed under S. 4 of the Act which gives to the Provincial Government the power to appoint as many Special Magistrates as it may be necessary to try and punish offences under the Act. A Special Magistrate is not a First Class Magistrate appointed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the powers that he exercises are substantially in excess of those possessed by a First Class Magistrate inasmuch as a Special Magistrate may sentence a person to 3 years' imprison ment and impose any amount of fine. Learned counsel for the appellant relies on S. 408 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a provision giving to a person convicted by a Special Magistrate the right to appeal to the Sessions Judge but that section refers to A Magistrates of the First Class and as we have pointed out a Special Magistrate is not a Magistrate of the First Class. Thus, no right of appeal can be inferred from S. 408 of the Code, nor is there any other provision in that Code from which such right may be inferred. We, therefore, hold that an order of a Special Magistrate appointed under the East Pakistan Food (Special Court) Act, 1956, is not appealable. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. K. B. A./A. H. Appeal dismissed.