1991 P Cr (PLP)
GHULAM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
| Citation | 1991 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860), (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 P Cr (PLP) (GHULAM HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S. 325
Accused was charged under S.325, P.P.C. but was convicted under S.323, P.P.C. by Trial Court
Appellate Court converted the conviction from under S.323, P.P.C. to one under S.325, P.P.C: --Accused was deemed to have been acquitted of the charge under S.325, P.P.C.
Appellate Court had no authority to convert an order of acquittal into conviction under that charge
Conviction and sentence was set aside in circumstances.
S. 323
Occurrence took place in the year 1986
Accused was twice sent to jail during trial and remained in jail for about two weeks after rejection. of his appeal
Remanding case back to Appellate Court for rehearing would not be proper in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
S. 323
Occurrence took place in the year 1986
Accused was twice sent to jail during trial and remained in jail for about two weeks after rejection. of his appeal
Remanding case back to Appellate Court for rehearing would not be proper in circumstances. Saleem Shad for Malik Abdus Sattar Chughtai for Appellant. Altaf-ur-Rehman for the State. Date of hearing: 27th March, 1991. Ghulam Hussain petitioner was tried under section 325, P.P.C. for causing grievous injury with blunt weapon to Ashiq Hussain P.W. On the conclusion of the trial he was convicted under section 323, P.P.C. Feeling aggrieved, he filed appeal which was entrusted to learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhakkar, who while dismissing the appeal converted the conviction of the petitioner from section 323 to 325, P.P.C., hence this revision.
2. No one has appeared for the petitioner. Since revision cannot be dismissed for non-appearance, so I have examined the case with the assistance of the learned counsel for the State. I find that the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge is quite illegal, inasmuch as, he is an appellate Court and even a revisional Court has no authority to convert conviction in minor offence to one A under the major offence. The petitioner was charged under section 325, P.P.C. However, he was convicted under section 323, P.P.C. This means that he was deemed to have been acquitted of the charge under section 325, P.P.C. The Appellate Court had no authority to convert an order of acquittal on a particular charge into conviction under that charge. For what has been said above, the revision is accepted.
3. Now the question arises as to whether or not the case should be sent back to the Appellate Court for rehearing of the appeal. I feel that the occurrence took place in the year 1986. The petitioner was sent to jail twice. He was convicted by the trial Court for causing hurt. After the rejection of his appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, he remained in jail for about two weeks before his sentence could be suspended by this Court. In these circumstances, I feel that it would not be proper to remand the case for fresh decision of appeal. Order accordingly. S.A./G-431/L Revision accepted.