2004 PLP 1573 (YLR)
AHMED KHAN and 2 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus CHATRO and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1573 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari J |
| Parties | AHMED KHAN and 2 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus CHATRO and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1573 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1573 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Moosa K. Leghari J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1573 (YLR) (AHMED KHAN and 2 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus CHATRO and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Judgment & Decree
Respondent Mevo in person, while Chatro is reported to be dead. Date of hearing: 2nd December, 2003. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2‑4‑1998 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Tharparkar at Mithi, whereby the appellants were convicted under section 220, P.P.C. to undergo R.I. for three months each. Accused Ilyas and Madad alias Mubarak were also convicted under section 337‑E(i), P.P.C. to undergo R. I. for three months each. Accused Ahmed Khan was directed to pay, sum of Rs.5,000 as compensation to victims Chatro and Mevo.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.A.‑G., and one of the victims/ respondents Mevo have been heard. The other respondent, namely, Chatro has since expired.
3. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that the charge in the case was framed under section 337‑E(i), P.P.C., which carries definitions of the offences, thus the charge was defective and invalid. It was next argued that the conviction was also recorded under section 337‑E(i), P.P.C., which was not sustainable. It was, therefore, urged that the case be remanded to the trial Court for retrial after framing the charge in a proper manner. 3‑A. Learned A.A.‑G. supported the judgment of conviction contending that the charge was valid and proper, despite that he had no reasons to supplement his plea.
4. Respondent Mevo, who is present in person, states that he has patched up with the appellants and does not intend to contest the appeal. The perusal of section 337‑E(i), P.P.C. clearly shows that it contains the definitions of the offences while the punishment in respect of the said offences has been provided under section 337‑F. P.P.C. The charge is thus defective, which has vitiated the trial. The conviction recorded under section 337‑E(i) is also" unsustainable. The submissions made by learned A.A.‑G. are absolutely misdirected being hollow and shallow. In the circumstances the impugned judgment of conviction is set aside, the case is remanded to the trial Court for proceeding afresh after framing a proper charge in accordance with law. The appeal stands disposed of. H.B.T./A‑31/K Case remanded.