2005 PLP 2565 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD SAEED — Petitioner Versus GHULAM QADIR and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 2565 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SAEED — Petitioner Versus GHULAM QADIR and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 2565 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 2565 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Iftikhar Hussain Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 2565 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD SAEED — Petitioner Versus GHULAM QADIR and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ijaz Feroze for Petitioner.
- Zafar Iqbal Chohan for Respondent No.1.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.324, 337-A(ii) & 34
Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.242 & 243
Trial of case by Magistrate
When case against accused and co-accused was fixed before Magistrate for summoning of accused, accused made confessional statement and Trial Magistrate in view of said confessional statement, awarded sentence to accused
On filing revision against judgment of Trial Magistrate, Sessions Court maintained conviction of accused holding that accused was liable to payment of Arsh amounting to 1/3 of Diyat and directed accused to deposit amount of Diyat in the Trial Court within specified period
Aggrieved by order of Sessions Court, accused had filed miscellaneous petition
Magistrate ignored provisions of Chap. XX of Cr.P.C. as neither statements of prosecution witnesses nor other documents were provided to accused
No charge under S. 342, Cr.P.C. was framed against accused and they were straightaway convicted when confessional statements were made by accused
Provisions of S. 243, Cr.P.C. were also avoided
Was not known as to under which provision of penal law accused were convicted
Magistrate was required to have framed a formal charge and thereafter when accused pleaded guilty, Magistrate was required to issue a show-cause notice to accused as to why he should not he convicted for the offences he was charged with
Sessions Court did not advert to that aspect of' matter
As conviction of petitioner/accused and his co-accused was recorded in violation of law, both orders passed by Sessions Court and Magistrate. were set aside with direction that Sessions Court would entrust case for trial to another Judicial Magistrate. Sattar Sahil, for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal case F.I.R. No.270, dated 6-5-2002, under sections 324/337-A(ii)/34, P.P.C. was registered at Police Station, Ghulam Muhammad Abad, District Faisalabad, on the report of Ghulam Qadir against four persons. According to allegations contained in the F.I.R., Rehmat Ali was fired at with a pistol by the petitioner. The victim was also injured allegedly by Zulfiqar Ali, as well.
2. Muhammad Saeed, petitioner and co-accused Zulfiqar Ali alias Zulfi were challaned to Court for offences under sections 324/337-A(ii)/34, P.P.C. Report under section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate with powers under section 30, Cr.P.C. The case was fixed before the Magistrate for summoning the accused, when Muhammad Saeed and Zulfiqar Ali stated that they wanted to plead guilty.
3. Accused thereafter made con fessional statements before the Court. Both the statements are in the following terms: "I confess my guilt and request the Court to please forgive me in the name of Al-Mighty Allah. (Sd.) Magistrate Section
30. Faisalabad."
4. In the view of the confessional statements made by accused, the trial Court awarded rigorous imprisonment for two years to each of the accused and fine of Rs.500 to the accused on both counts, in the event of default in the payment of fine, the convicts were to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. Benefit of section 382-B, Cr.P.C. was also given to the accused.
5. Ghulam Qadir, complainant, filed revision against the order, dated 1-7-2004, passed by Trial Magistrate before Sessions Judge, Raja Pervaiz Akhtar, Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, maintained the conviction of the petitioner and held that he is liable to payment of Arsh amounting to 1/3rd of Diyat. The accused were directed to deposit the amount of Diyat in the trial Court within a period of 15 days.
6. Aggrieved of order dated 15-10-2004, under consideration petition was filed.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the complainant.
8. In this case four persons were named as accused. An interim report under section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted before the Magistrate. The rest of accused were yet to be summoned. Trial Magistrate ignored the provisions of Chapter XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Neither the statements of prosecution witnesses nor other documents were provided to the accused. No charge, under section 242, Cr.P.C., was framed against the accused. They were straightaway convicted when confessional statements were made and provisions of section 243, Cr.P.C., were also avoided. It is not known under which provision of penal law, the accused was convicted. The Magistrate was required to have framed a formal charge and thereafter when the accused pleaded guilty, then the Magistrate was required to issue a show-cause notice to the accused as to why they should not be convicted for the offences charged with. In this case, trial Court made a short shrift of the matter, ignored the entire law and procedure and convicted the accused without mentioning the particular offence for which they were convicted. Unfortunately the Additional Sessions Judge, who heard the revision petition, also did not advert to this aspect of the matter. As conviction of the petitioner and co-accused was recorded in the violation of law, both the orders namely one passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, dated 15-10-2004 and that passed by Magistrate Section 30, Faisalabad, dated 1-7-2004, are set aside. Report under section 173, Cr.P.C., filed by police shall be deemed to be pending before the Magistrate, who shall proceed in the mattered novo. He shall comply with the provisions of Chapter XX of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and then pass any appropriate order in the matter.
9. As Muhammad Saeed petitioner and co-accused Zulfiqar Ali alias Zulfi have already remained about two years behind the bars and are now out of prison, I am not inclined to send them to prison again. They shall be deemed to be on bail during the pendency of the trial. and shall submit bonds in the sum of Rs.1,00,000 each with one surety each, under section 91, Cr.P.C. before the trial Magistrate.
10. The Sessions Judge, Faisalabad, shall entrust the case for trial to another Judicial Magistrate. H.B.T./M-1094/L Order accordingly.