1983 PLP 734 (SCMR)
KHUSHI MUHAMMAD -Petitioner Versus JAMAT ALI Etc.-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 734 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KHUSHI MUHAMMAD -Petitioner Versus JAMAT ALI Etc.-Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 734 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 734 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 734 (SCMR) (KHUSHI MUHAMMAD -Petitioner Versus JAMAT ALI Etc.-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Muzaffar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 21st March, 1983.
- Raja Muhammad Muzaffar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- 4. After hearing learned counsel and also Mr. Tanvir Ahmad Khan who appeared on behalf of the Advocate‑General, Punjab, in response to notice by this Court, we grant leave to appeal to consider the questions raised. Notice shall be sent to the accused respondents and the case fixed for hearing on 23‑4‑1983. The proceeding in remand shall be stayed.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order dated 20-11-1982 of the Lahore High Court passed in Criminal Revision No. 481 of 1982). -- Art. 185(3) read with Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss, 307 3c 429/149/ 148 and Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 341-Trial of number of accused, including two deaf and dumb accused, for offences under Ss. 307 `& 429, P. P. C.-Trial Court though at late stage, recording finding that in circumstances of case, deaf and dumb accused were able to understand proceedings-Leave to appeal-Granted to consider questions whether S. 341, Cr. P. C. was not attracted to case and whether remand of case by appellate Court as against co-accused who suffered from no disability was not justified. Tanvir Ahmad Khan, A. A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J. On appeal preferred by the‑ eight respondents against their conviction under sections 307 and 429 read with section 149, and section 148, P. P. C. the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhang, remanded the case to the trial Court for a de novo trial for the reasons, inter alia of non -compliance of the provision of section 341, Cr. P. C. as two of the respondents, namely, Mahmood Shah and Mukhtar Shah, were deaf and dumb and the trial Court did not initially conduct any inquiry whether they could under stand the proceeding but appointed an interpreter for them only towards the end of the trial when their statements were to be recorded under section 342, Cr. P. C. The petitioner, who is complainant in the case, challenged the order in revision before the High Court but having failed, now seeks leave to appeal.
2. The High Court expressed the view that the making of such inquiry at the initial stage of the trial was necessary in order to ascertain whether the accused were able to understand the proceeding or not and that such inquiry, if the case was not covered by section 341, Cr. P. C. could enable the appel late Court to satisfy itself that the accused concerned bad a fair trial, or if covered by section 341, the High Court on reference could be in a better position to assert what order should be passed against them.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that section 341, Cr. P. C. was not attracted inasmuch as the trial Court, though at a late stage, did record a finding that the said accused Mahmood Shah and Mukhtar Shah ,J were able to understand the proceeding because three of the co‑accused were their real brothers who were able to make them understand the proceeding of the case and because their having denied the charge showed that they were, to understand the proceeding. He further urged that the remand of the case as against the six co‑accused was not justified because they suffered from no such disability.
4. After hearing learned counsel and also Mr. Tanvir Ahmad Khan who appeared on behalf of the Advocate‑General, Punjab, in response to notice by this Court, we grant leave to appeal to consider the questions raised. Notice shall be sent to the accused respondents and the case fixed for hearing on 23‑4‑1983. The proceeding in remand shall be stayed. Leave to appeal granted.