2004 P Cr (PLP)
GHULAM SADIQ‑‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ARIF and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 P Cr (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar |
| Bench Members | Ijaz‑ul‑Hassan Khan, J |
| Parties | GHULAM SADIQ‑‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ARIF and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑, (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑, (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 P Cr (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar bench comprising: Ijaz‑ul‑Hassan Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 P Cr (PLP) (GHULAM SADIQ‑‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ARIF and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ayaz Chaudhary for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 249‑A‑‑‑Acquittal of accused‑‑‑Powers of Magistrate‑‑Words "at any stage" as used in S.249‑A, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Connotation‑‑‑Trial Magistrate under S.249‑A, Cr.P.C. had been given powers of acquitting an accused at any stage of the case if, after hearing prosecutor and accused and for reasons to be recorded, he considered, that charge against accused was groundless or there was no probability of his conviction of any offence‑‑ Use of words "at any stage" indicated the intention of Legislature that such order could be passed even before recording of evidence, if the facts of the case were such that the Court was satisfied that no useful purpose would be served by prosecuting further in the matter. ‑‑‑‑S. 417‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337‑A(i)/506/34‑‑‑Appeal against acquittal‑‑‑Accused case was acquitted by Trial Court by invoking provisions of S.249‑A, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Conclusion drawn by Trial Court was neither arbitrary or fanciful nor artificial in nature‑‑ Appellate Court would be slow in disturbing the finding of fact arrived at by Trial Court who had the advantage of seeing witness‑‑‑Acquittal judgment was not to be interfered with lightly and due consideration and weight was to be attached to observations made in acquittal judgment‑‑ Such rule was to be followed more strictly if the acquittal judgment was recorded by Trial Court which had the opportunity of examining witnesses and observing their demeanour in the Court‑‑Order of acquittal was passed after 12 years of registration of case against accused and accused had suffered the agonies of protracted trial for 12 years‑‑‑Was not proper at such stage to remand the case for retrial‑‑ Such reasoned order of acquittal did not suffer from any legal infirmity or arbitrariness so as to render same open to any exception‑‑‑Appeal against acquittal was dismissed in circumstances. Muhammad Akram and others v. The State 1995 SCMR 1359 and Munawar Shah v. Liaqat Hussain and others 2002 SCMR 713 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2004, decided on 8th April, 2004. (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 249‑A‑‑‑Acquittal of accused‑‑‑Powers of Magistrate‑‑Words "at any stage" as used in S.249‑A, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Connotation‑‑‑Trial Magistrate under S.249‑A, Cr.P.C. had been given powers of acquitting an accused at any stage of the case if, after hearing prosecutor and accused and for reasons to be recorded, he considered, that charge against accused was groundless or there was no probability of his conviction of any offence‑‑ Use of words "at any stage" indicated the intention of Legislature that such order could be passed even before recording of evidence, if the facts of the case were such that the Court was satisfied that no useful purpose would be served by prosecuting further in the matter. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 417‑‑‑Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.337‑A(i)/506/34‑‑‑Appeal against acquittal‑‑‑Accused case was acquitted by Trial Court by invoking provisions of S.249‑A, Cr.P.C.‑‑‑Conclusion drawn by Trial Court was neither arbitrary or fanciful nor artificial in nature‑‑ Appellate Court would be slow in disturbing the finding of fact arrived at by Trial Court who had the advantage of seeing witness‑‑‑Acquittal judgment was not to be interfered with lightly and due consideration and weight was to be attached to observations made in acquittal judgment‑‑ Such rule was to be followed more strictly if the acquittal judgment was recorded by Trial Court which had the opportunity of examining witnesses and observing their demeanour in the Court‑‑Order of acquittal was passed after 12 years of registration of case against accused and accused had suffered the agonies of protracted trial for 12 years‑‑‑Was not proper at such stage to remand the case for retrial‑‑ Such reasoned order of acquittal did not suffer from any legal infirmity or arbitrariness so as to render same open to any exception‑‑‑Appeal against acquittal was dismissed in circumstances. Muhammad Akram and others v. The State 1995 SCMR 1359 and Munawar Shah v. Liaqat Hussain and others 2002 SCMR 713 ref. Muhammad Ayaz Chaudhary for Appellant.